<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body 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>
</body>
</html>