<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=iso-8859-1"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">We are refactoring internal api's, JSR94 will need to move public apis. So we have to decide if it's worth spending the week refactoring it, or whether we just remove it. Our resources are finite, so it's always good to review what is really necessary. <div><br></div><div>It's about the same amount of time to add JSR94 back in, as it is refactor it. So I'm wondering if we should take that path, and monitor the general feedback.<br><div><br></div><div>Mark<br><div><div><div>On 14 Feb 2013, at 12:24, "<a href="mailto:Ben.Cotton@alumni.rutgers.edu">Ben.Cotton@alumni.rutgers.edu</a>" <<a href="mailto:ben.cotton@morganstanley.com">ben.cotton@morganstanley.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font color="#3333ff">Even if you find
evidence that nobody is using JSR-94, I still would not nuke it.<br>
<br>
Technically, it is <i>the</i> Java standard API for
inter-operating w/ Rules Engine providers. Every project under
the JBoss brand seems to prioritize the merits of its platform
stack being 100% open-source and 100% standards compliant. By
nuking JSR-94 could DROOLs (technically? politically?) be seen
as being delinquent (wrt to this JBoss community priority)?
Also, by nuking JSR-94 -- even if no one is using it -- do you
risk some other Java based rules engine provider using a
FUD-like pitch of "Don't use DROOLs. They use their own
proprietary Java API. Ours is JSR-94 compliant, DROOLs is not
compliant ...." ?<br>
<br>
JSR-94 seems like a relatively straightforward specification.
Though it may be a nuisance to maintain the necessary API
bridges to the DROOLs specific interfaces and implementation
capabilities, it <i>might</i> also be worth it to ":just do
it" ... if for no other reason than to pre-emptively disarm any
potential "DROOLs is not standards compliant!" FUD rantings.</font><br>
<br>
<br>
On 2/13/2013 5:59 PM, Mark Proctor wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:9E750441-4B5C-4A1B-87C6-D2EEF0EF02A0@codehaus.org" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I've asked this on the developer list, thought I'd ask it here too.
Is anyone using JSR94, anyone think we should not nuke it?
Mark
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org">rules-users@lists.jboss.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>rules-users mailing list<br><a href="mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org">rules-users@lists.jboss.org</a><br>https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users</blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></body></html>