[rules-dev] Re: ruleflow processes
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> 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