I'll clean this one up, too.
My objective will be to
- inform users unambiguously about mistakes and how to correct them,
- recover useful features,
- be reticent w.r.t. deprecated features (duration!),
- document the result
PS.: The December 6 issue of Time magazine contains the remarkable sentence:
"...an invention [...] intended to simplify the [...] process by making it
more complicated". Well, well, well,...
On 30 November 2010 02:29, Mark Proctor <mproctor(a)codehaus.org> wrote:
On 29/11/2010 22:31, Michael Neale wrote:
I think that goes back to an attempt to let people use different
words/languages without i18n - so probably a bad idea.
Unless people object, I propose getting rid of that behaviour and
cleaning it up to be keywords - AS LONG AS if they put in a non valid
keyword, the error shows a list of what *is* valid so they can then correct
One thing to remember is the Drools codebase is mature, like 8 years or
something now. There are lots of half implemented things or semi implemented
things that are not documented or intended for end user use :)
Partly that's beacuse you start working on an idea and never get it
finished, but the code still lives on as you always intend to come back to
it, but you never do.
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 11:53 PM, Wolfgang Laun <wolfgang.laun(a)gmail.com>wrote:
> Hi Michael,
> I just discovered ActionType.addNewActionType, where the code tries to
> follow some
> (now) completely undocumented principle, where columns can be identified
> by single
> letters, the first one of the action type. This is in conflict with the
> where only full-fledged keywords are permitted.
> There are some undocumented keywords, e.g., DESCRIPTION. Using this
> in a duration attribute (which is deprecated anyway). This can be fixed,
> but then
> the description is entered "as is"; it should have a leading '#'.
> Clear out all undocumented things? Or fix them properly and document them?
> What is it to be?
> On 28 November 2010 23:33, Michael Neale <michael.neale(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> nice work..
>> yes "syntax cushioning" is the best term I have heard for this.
>> I am sure your enhancements would be welcome.
>> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 5:14 AM, Wolfgang Laun <wolfgang.laun(a)gmail.com
>> > wrote:
>>> I have, at long last, overcome my disinclination against spreadsheets
>>> and played around a bit.
>>> As one of the incentives (perhaps the main one) for this kind of rule
>>> authoring appears to be a "syntax" cushioning by spreadsheet
entries, I feel
>>> that additional simplifications might be appreciated. Therefore, I have
>>> modified some classes in org.drools.decisiontable.parser, to achieve the
>>> following, in the area of RuleSet entries:
>>> - All entries are now repeatable, either by adding more cells to the
>>> right of "import" than just one (with a comma-separated list) or
>>> more that one "Import" row.
>>> - Same for "Variables", "Functions" and
>>> - All tags ("Import",...) are case insensitive and immune
>>> leading and trailing spaces.
>>> - Some user errors don't cause NPE; they throw an exception with an
>>> explanatory message
>>> Opinions, please, and should I just release this, or would someone care
>>> to have a look and test it?
>>> rules-dev mailing list
>> Michael D Neale
>> home: www.michaelneale.net
>> blog: michaelneale.blogspot.com
>> rules-dev mailing list
> rules-dev mailing list
Michael D Neale
rules-dev mailing list