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 it.
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 11:53 PM, Wolfgang Laun <wolfgang.laun(a)gmail.com>wrote:
I just discovered ActionType.addNewActionType, where the code tries to
(now) completely undocumented principle, where columns can be identified by
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 results
in a duration attribute (which is deprecated anyway). This can be fixed,
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
>> 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 by
>> more that one "Import" row.
>> - Same for "Variables", "Functions" and
>> - All tags ("Import",...) are case insensitive and immune against
>> 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