Re: [rules-dev] Why are fundamental API functions not part of "stable"?

On 09/08/2010 09:58, Wolfgang Laun wrote: We plan to refactor the entire of drools-core and drools-compiler to reflect drools-api more, so it'll all change. We couldn't do this in one go, as many people where already using those interfacaes and implementations; including some JBoss projects. So instead we decided to introduce a new cleaner api that is knowledge oriented, rather than rules oriented, and have that wrap the old api. So that we could move forward with a new api, while not upsetting any of our old user base, giving them time to move across. We have taken a very conservative approach with drools-api minimising what we expose. We instead prefer to wait for valid use cases to determine what we expose, rather than exposing wait for those use cases to arise. The reason for this is that the more you expose the harder it is to change a library over time, due to backwards compatability. So the conservative aspect gives us more flexability in the long run. I also have plans around agenda-groups, ruleflow-groups and other types of groups. I want to completely redesign the concept here to something more consistent and uniform and also more powerful and flexible. So again I'm reluctant to expose things, that might stop us making those changes. Mark