[rules-dev] [vote] Bring taseree into drools as drools-solver

Hi all, Mark proposed moving "taseree" as an experimental "drools-solver" module into the drools trunk. There a couple of things that might need a decision: 1) Does no one object to moving into drools as an experimental module? It would not be included into the <module> set of the parent pom (yet), as it's still very experimental. But it will use the parent pom, so it might require additional dependencies in dependencyManagement. Currently it depends on commons-lang, commons-logging, log4j and xstream. And drools of course :) 2) What name do we give it? - taseree (original name, legacy) -1 as its no longer correct as it's more then a tabu search with rule engine evaluation: simulated annealing, etc - drools-solver +1 sounds good, although people might think it's an alternative to for example ilog solver, while it's in a quite different league: localsearch instead of simplex. Someday drools might build a simplex based solver too... - drools-solver-localsearch +0 some of the code is already a bit reusable between other types of solvers, such as genetic algoritms, so calling it only localsearch doesn't really fit 3) What is it's package? - org.drools.solver ? 3) How should the modules be moduralized? trunk/ (parent pom) trunk/drools-core trunk/... trunk/drools-solver trunk/drools-solver-examples (depends on solver) trunk/drools-solver-benchmarks (depends on examples) Or trunk/ (parent pom) trunk/drools-core trunk/... trunk/drools-solver (solver parent pom) trunk/drools-solver/drools-solver-core trunk/drools-solver/drools-solver-examples (depends on solver-core) trunk/drools-solver/drools-solver-benchmarks (depends on examples) 4) Code format Currently I am using the standard "Sun's code conventions for Java", much like JBoss hibernate, Jboss Seam, etc. http://java.sun.com/docs/codeconv/html/CodeConvTOC.doc.html However as a drools module it should use drools's code format of course. What do you think? -- With kind regards, Geoffrey De Smet