[rules-users] Template bug on "package" keyword

[Wolfgang Laun]

You can't be much worse off if you add "package foo" to the template.
Or is there a problem with this obvious workaround?
-W

On 27 August 2010 18:25, drdaveg <drdaveg at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> I am trying to incorporate several templates in a single output drl file.
> According to the 5.0.1 docs "package" is optional:
>
> Example 5.3. Rule template file: templates
> template header
> parameter-name-1
> ...
> parameter-name-n
> package ... # optional
>
> However, it seems that the drools parser uses "package" as a keyword to
> identify when it has passed header information.  Not having a "package"
> specifier in either 5.0.1 or 5.1.1 yields:
>
> java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: value rule "rules for reject non-header
> @{id}" is not a valid column definition
>        at
> org.drools.template.parser.ColumnFactory.getColumn(ColumnFactory.java:34)
>
> which cannot be overcome by tricks like
>
> // package a.b.c
> or
> #  package a.b.c
>
> Are other people experiencing this?  Is there a fix planned for the parser?
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://drools-java-rules-engine.46999.n3.nabble.com/Template-bug-on-package-keyword-tp1374638p1374638.html
> Sent from the Drools - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-users/attachments/20100827/1a6220ed/attachment.html