"tfennelly" wrote : Right... I know I said it already (indirectly perhaps :) ),
but I actually think there would be less confusion for the user if we made a clean break
from the ContenBasedRouter action config. We could still use the same underlying code. I
think there's nothing more confusing for things to look "nearly the same",
but for them to not really be the same and to have subtle little differences that need to
be explained in parallel.
And it could also be argued that it is confusing to have multiple different actions doing
the same job (content based routing). We could spend a long time arguing back and
forwards about the merits of each when
- we don't have the time
- they are functionally equivalent.
We are not creating another mechanism when the original author has already added one.
Okay, it is not as clean as I would have liked and may not have been how we would do it
but it does exist and we will use it.
We also do *not* have to use the same attributes as the drools version if they do not make
sense. As I already pointed out the extension mechanism passes the configuration through
to the implementation.
Kev
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4256701#...
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...