[rules-dev] Re: ruleflow processes

great, not sure if I will do this for 4.0 though, will see, but certainly this sounds like it can work nicely. Keeping it decoupled as it was is/was probably the best thing, definitely the right way to go. So it ruleflow still "experimental" class for 4.0? or is it now officially part of the core? Michael On 5/22/07, *Kris Verlaenen* < kris.verlaenen(a)gmail.com <mailto:kris.verlaenen@gmail.com>> wrote: The reason it was specified in a separate class is that it is still more experimental, and I didn't want to interfere with the core stuff too much. I don't see any real downsides, ruleflows are indeed just another asset I think. Kris On 5/22/07, Michael Neale < michael.neale(a)gmail.com <mailto:michael.neale@gmail.com>> wrote: > Kris, looking at the ruleflow stuff (not the core, but the .rf stuff), I > have a suggestion on how to make it more integrated with the ruleset/package > structure. > > At the moment Ruleflow packages are a seperate entity that is merged into a > RuleBase as needed. > > Does anyone have any objections if we add the ability to have ruleflow as > part of a rule Package itself? (thus when that package is added to the > rulebase, all the processes for ruleflow go along with it)? so a ruleflow.rf > file for example becomes just another asset like a drl? > > Kris? thoughts? downsides? > No need to change the current API. > > Michael