Re: [rules-dev] Reminder [was: Inconsistent option property naming]
On 21/02/2013, Geoffrey De Smet <ge0ffrey.spam(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Would it break backwards compatibility when changed?
How should I know? - If the property is set using the public static
final, then it's invariant under change.
-W
Op 21-02-13 15:49, Wolfgang Laun schreef:
> After a period of more than 24 hours, this point is still open, and
> the question of adding or not adding the dot leaves me in a tight
> spot.
> -W
>
> On 20/02/2013, Wolfgang Laun <wolfgang.laun(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> Looking at
>>
>> WorkItemHandlerOption implements MultiValueKnowledgeSessionOption
>>
>> contains
>>
>> public static final String PROPERTY_NAME =
"drools.workItemHandlers";
>>
>> which is used as
>>
>> public String getPropertyName() {
>> return PROPERTY_NAME+name;
>> }
>>
>> so that some actual property setting would have to be the ugly
>> concatenation
>>
>> drools.workItemHandlerstheName = theHandler
>>
>> All (!) other multi-valued options use a period to separate the fixed
>> part from the user-defined tag, i.e.,
>>
>> public static final String PROPERTY_NAME =
"drools.workItemHandlers.";
>>
>> -W
>>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-dev mailing list
> rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
>
_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev