2:52 p.m.
lol ! other then 3.0.x branch ?? ;)
Edson may know a branch to use, but in any case, Mark is beavering away on
MVEL integration which will be awesome (I think he wants MVEL for an M1
release).
On 1/12/07, Dirk Bergstrom <dirk(a)juniper.net> wrote:
Michael Neale was heard to exclaim, On 01/02/07 05:28:
> Guys, I am ok to do a M1 release of 3.2 whenever needed
Any news on this? I've been running (in production now) on code I pulled
from
trunk a month or so ago, and it throws NPEs now and again. I'd really
like to
get something a bit more stable. Today's trunk "revision 8842"
doesn't
build,
because the mvel code is Java 1.5.
I'm kinda stuck here, and I'm hoping that someone can throw me a bone. If
M1
isn't coming soon, was there a particular revision number that was fairly
stable
that I can use?
--
Dirk Bergstrom dirk(a)juniper.net
_____________________________________________
Juniper Networks Inc., Computer Geek
Tel: 408.745.3182 Fax: 408.745.8905
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
4:09 p.m.
New subject: [drools-dev] 3.2 M1
Except for the need to change code target to 1.5, core and compiler
are compiling fine now and all tests are green.
I just commited the new Builders. We now support any level of
Conditional Elements nesting.
Forall is just syntax sugar that I will add now. Shall be ok on monday.
So, I think the major requirement for M1 is the MVEL stuff.
[]s
Edson
Michael Neale wrote:
lol ! other then 3.0.x branch ?? ;)
Edson may know a branch to use, but in any case, Mark is beavering
away on MVEL integration which will be awesome (I think he wants MVEL
for an M1 release).
On 1/12/07, *Dirk Bergstrom* <dirk(a)juniper.net
<mailto:dirk@juniper.net>> wrote:
Michael Neale was heard to exclaim, On 01/02/07 05:28:
> Guys, I am ok to do a M1 release of 3.2 whenever needed
Any news on this? I've been running (in production now) on code I
pulled from
trunk a month or so ago, and it throws NPEs now and again. I'd
really like to
get something a bit more stable. Today's trunk "revision 8842"
doesn't build,
because the mvel code is Java 1.5.
I'm kinda stuck here, and I'm hoping that someone can throw me a
bone. If M1
isn't coming soon, was there a particular revision number that was
fairly stable
that I can use?
--
Dirk Bergstrom dirk(a)juniper.net
<mailto:dirk@juniper.net>
_____________________________________________
Juniper Networks Inc., Computer Geek
Tel: 408.745.3182 Fax: 408.745.8905
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
--
Edson Tirelli
Software Engineer - JBoss Rules Core Developer
Office: +55 11 3124-6000
Mobile: +55 11 9218-4151
JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
5:01 p.m.
New subject: [drools-dev] 3.2 M1
oh the horror of users nesting statements 4-10 deep.
I fear the poor user won't know what the heck they wrote the next day :)
peter
On 1/12/07, Edson Tirelli <tirelli(a)post.com> wrote:
Except for the need to change code target to 1.5, core and compiler
are compiling fine now and all tests are green.
I just commited the new Builders. We now support any level of
Conditional Elements nesting.
Forall is just syntax sugar that I will add now. Shall be ok on monday.
So, I think the major requirement for M1 is the MVEL stuff.
[]s
Edson
Michael Neale wrote:
> lol ! other then 3.0.x branch ?? ;)
>
> Edson may know a branch to use, but in any case, Mark is beavering
> away on MVEL integration which will be awesome (I think he wants MVEL
> for an M1 release).
>
> On 1/12/07, *Dirk Bergstrom* <dirk(a)juniper.net
> <mailto:dirk@juniper.net>> wrote:
>
> Michael Neale was heard to exclaim, On 01/02/07 05:28:
> > Guys, I am ok to do a M1 release of 3.2 whenever needed
>
> Any news on this? I've been running (in production now) on code I
> pulled from
> trunk a month or so ago, and it throws NPEs now and again. I'd
> really like to
> get something a bit more stable. Today's trunk "revision 8842"
> doesn't build,
> because the mvel code is Java 1.5.
>
> I'm kinda stuck here, and I'm hoping that someone can throw me a
> bone. If M1
> isn't coming soon, was there a particular revision number that was
> fairly stable
> that I can use?
>
> --
> Dirk Bergstrom dirk(a)juniper.net
> <mailto:dirk@juniper.net>
> _____________________________________________
> Juniper Networks Inc., Computer Geek
> Tel: 408.745.3182 Fax: 408.745.8905
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>rules-dev mailing list
>rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
>
>
--
Edson Tirelli
Software Engineer - JBoss Rules Core Developer
Office: +55 11 3124-6000
Mobile: +55 11 9218-4151
JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
12:44 p.m.
New subject: [drools-dev] 3.2 M1
yes, well just cause you can, doesn't mean you should... ;)
I think its needed for the first order logic stuff like not, exists, forall,
*occasionally* (especially "not" I have often wanted it), but should only be
used as a light seasoning.
On 1/12/07, Peter Lin <woolfel(a)gmail.com> wrote:
oh the horror of users nesting statements 4-10 deep.
I fear the poor user won't know what the heck they wrote the next day :)
peter
On 1/12/07, Edson Tirelli <tirelli(a)post.com> wrote:
>
> Except for the need to change code target to 1.5, core and compiler
> are compiling fine now and all tests are green.
>
> I just commited the new Builders. We now support any level of
> Conditional Elements nesting.
>
> Forall is just syntax sugar that I will add now. Shall be ok on
> monday.
>
> So, I think the major requirement for M1 is the MVEL stuff.
>
> []s
> Edson
>
> Michael Neale wrote:
>
> > lol ! other then 3.0.x branch ?? ;)
> >
> > Edson may know a branch to use, but in any case, Mark is beavering
> > away on MVEL integration which will be awesome (I think he wants MVEL
> > for an M1 release).
> >
> > On 1/12/07, *Dirk Bergstrom* < dirk(a)juniper.net
> > <mailto:dirk@juniper.net>> wrote:
> >
> > Michael Neale was heard to exclaim, On 01/02/07 05:28:
> > > Guys, I am ok to do a M1 release of 3.2 whenever needed
> >
> > Any news on this? I've been running (in production now) on code I
> > pulled from
> > trunk a month or so ago, and it throws NPEs now and again. I'd
> > really like to
> > get something a bit more stable. Today's trunk "revision
8842"
> > doesn't build,
> > because the mvel code is Java 1.5.
> >
> > I'm kinda stuck here, and I'm hoping that someone can throw me a
> > bone. If M1
> > isn't coming soon, was there a particular revision number that was
> > fairly stable
> > that I can use?
> >
> > --
> > Dirk Bergstrom dirk(a)juniper.net
> > <mailto:dirk@juniper.net>
> > _____________________________________________
> > Juniper Networks Inc., Computer Geek
> > Tel: 408.745.3182 Fax: 408.745.8905
> > _______________________________________________
> > rules-users mailing list
> > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> >
> >
>
> >------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >rules-dev mailing list
> > rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> >https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Edson Tirelli
> Software Engineer - JBoss Rules Core Developer
> Office: +55 11 3124-6000
> Mobile: +55 11 9218-4151
> JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
1:23 p.m.
New subject: [drools-dev] 3.2 M1
haha, users already do the right thing :)
so no one ever needs to worry about a rule being 5 pages with deeply nested
and/or. Joking aside, I am quite shocked at how frequent users do it. In
fact, I would say it's like half the time, users do stupid things like that.
then they bring in a consultant, who fixes the pile of mess.
peter
On 1/13/07, Michael Neale <michael.neale(a)gmail.com> wrote:
yes, well just cause you can, doesn't mean you should... ;)
I think its needed for the first order logic stuff like not, exists,
forall, *occasionally* (especially "not" I have often wanted it), but should
only be used as a light seasoning.
On 1/12/07, Peter Lin <woolfel(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> oh the horror of users nesting statements 4-10 deep.
>
> I fear the poor user won't know what the heck they wrote the next day :)
>
> peter
>
> On 1/12/07, Edson Tirelli < tirelli(a)post.com> wrote:
> >
> > Except for the need to change code target to 1.5, core and compiler
> > are compiling fine now and all tests are green.
> >
> > I just commited the new Builders. We now support any level of
> > Conditional Elements nesting.
> >
> > Forall is just syntax sugar that I will add now. Shall be ok on
> > monday.
> >
> > So, I think the major requirement for M1 is the MVEL stuff.
> >
> > []s
> > Edson
> >
> > Michael Neale wrote:
> >
> > > lol ! other then 3.0.x branch ?? ;)
> > >
> > > Edson may know a branch to use, but in any case, Mark is beavering
> > > away on MVEL integration which will be awesome (I think he wants
> > MVEL
> > > for an M1 release).
> > >
> > > On 1/12/07, *Dirk Bergstrom* < dirk(a)juniper.net
> > > <mailto: dirk(a)juniper.net>> wrote:
> > >
> > > Michael Neale was heard to exclaim, On 01/02/07 05:28:
> > > > Guys, I am ok to do a M1 release of 3.2 whenever needed
> > >
> > > Any news on this? I've been running (in production now) on code
> > I
> > > pulled from
> > > trunk a month or so ago, and it throws NPEs now and again. I'd
> > > really like to
> > > get something a bit more stable. Today's trunk "revision
8842"
> > > doesn't build,
> > > because the mvel code is Java 1.5.
> > >
> > > I'm kinda stuck here, and I'm hoping that someone can throw me
a
> >
> > > bone. If M1
> > > isn't coming soon, was there a particular revision number that
> > was
> > > fairly stable
> > > that I can use?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Dirk Bergstrom dirk(a)juniper.net
> > > <mailto: dirk(a)juniper.net>
> > > _____________________________________________
> > > Juniper Networks Inc., Computer Geek
> > > Tel: 408.745.3182 Fax: 408.745.8905
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > rules-users mailing list
> > > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> > >
> > >
> >
> > >------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >rules-dev mailing list
> > > rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> > >https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Edson Tirelli
> > Software Engineer - JBoss Rules Core Developer
> > Office: +55 11 3124-6000
> > Mobile: +55 11 9218-4151
> > JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
2:44 p.m.
New subject: [drools-dev] 3.2 M1
Peter,
I imagine you are right, but FOL "forall" requires 2 levels of
nesting. From an implementation perspective (code), supporting 2 levels
of nesting or supporting X levels of nesting is exactly the same, as the
algorithm for creating the subnetworks is inherently recursive.
So, if users start to abuse, good for the consultants.
[]s
Edson
Peter Lin wrote:
haha, users already do the right thing :)
so no one ever needs to worry about a rule being 5 pages with deeply
nested and/or. Joking aside, I am quite shocked at how frequent users
do it. In fact, I would say it's like half the time, users do stupid
things like that.
then they bring in a consultant, who fixes the pile of mess.
peter
On 1/13/07, *Michael Neale* <michael.neale(a)gmail.com
<mailto:michael.neale@gmail.com>> wrote:
yes, well just cause you can, doesn't mean you should... ;)
I think its needed for the first order logic stuff like not,
exists, forall, *occasionally* (especially "not" I have often
wanted it), but should only be used as a light seasoning.
On 1/12/07, *Peter Lin* < woolfel(a)gmail.com
<mailto:woolfel@gmail.com>> wrote:
oh the horror of users nesting statements 4-10 deep.
I fear the poor user won't know what the heck they wrote the
next day :)
peter
On 1/12/07, *Edson Tirelli* < tirelli(a)post.com
<mailto:tirelli@post.com>> wrote:
Except for the need to change code target to 1.5, core
and compiler
are compiling fine now and all tests are green.
I just commited the new Builders. We now support any
level of
Conditional Elements nesting.
Forall is just syntax sugar that I will add now. Shall
be ok on monday.
So, I think the major requirement for M1 is the MVEL stuff.
[]s
Edson
Michael Neale wrote:
> lol ! other then 3.0.x branch ?? ;)
>
> Edson may know a branch to use, but in any case, Mark is
beavering
> away on MVEL integration which will be awesome (I think
he wants MVEL
> for an M1 release).
>
> On 1/12/07, *Dirk Bergstrom* < dirk(a)juniper.net
<mailto:dirk@juniper.net>
> <mailto: dirk(a)juniper.net <mailto:dirk@juniper.net>>> wrote:
>
> Michael Neale was heard to exclaim, On 01/02/07 05:28:
> > Guys, I am ok to do a M1 release of 3.2 whenever
needed
>
> Any news on this? I've been running (in production
now) on code I
> pulled from
> trunk a month or so ago, and it throws NPEs now and
again. I'd
> really like to
> get something a bit more stable. Today's trunk
"revision 8842"
> doesn't build,
> because the mvel code is Java 1.5.
>
> I'm kinda stuck here, and I'm hoping that someone can
throw me a
> bone. If M1
> isn't coming soon, was there a particular revision
number that was
> fairly stable
> that I can use?
>
> --
> Dirk Bergstrom dirk(a)juniper.net
<mailto:dirk@juniper.net>
> <mailto: dirk(a)juniper.net <mailto:dirk@juniper.net>>
> _____________________________________________
> Juniper Networks Inc., Computer Geek
> Tel: 408.745.3182 Fax: 408.745.8905
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
<https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>rules-dev mailing list
> rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-dev@lists.jboss.org>
>https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
>
>
--
Edson Tirelli
Software Engineer - JBoss Rules Core Developer
Office: +55 11 3124-6000
Mobile: +55 11 9218-4151
JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
<http://www.jboss.com>
_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-dev@lists.jboss.org>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-dev@lists.jboss.org>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-dev@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
--
Edson Tirelli
Software Engineer - JBoss Rules Core Developer
Office: +55 11 3124-6000
Mobile: +55 11 9218-4151
JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
3:49 p.m.
New subject: [drools-dev] 3.2 M1
It is more common, hopefully over time education and tooling will make it
clearer of the benefits of "the right way", but there seems to be a law that
says turing complete environments/languages will be used for ANYTHING (and
its true from my experience).
On 1/13/07, Peter Lin <woolfel(a)gmail.com> wrote:
haha, users already do the right thing :)
so no one ever needs to worry about a rule being 5 pages with deeply
nested and/or. Joking aside, I am quite shocked at how frequent users do
it. In fact, I would say it's like half the time, users do stupid things
like that.
then they bring in a consultant, who fixes the pile of mess.
peter
On 1/13/07, Michael Neale <michael.neale(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> yes, well just cause you can, doesn't mean you should... ;)
>
> I think its needed for the first order logic stuff like not, exists,
> forall, *occasionally* (especially "not" I have often wanted it), but
should
> only be used as a light seasoning.
>
> On 1/12/07, Peter Lin < woolfel(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > oh the horror of users nesting statements 4-10 deep.
> >
> > I fear the poor user won't know what the heck they wrote the next day
> > :)
> >
> > peter
> >
> > On 1/12/07, Edson Tirelli < tirelli(a)post.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Except for the need to change code target to 1.5, core and
> > > compiler
> > > are compiling fine now and all tests are green.
> > >
> > > I just commited the new Builders. We now support any level of
> > > Conditional Elements nesting.
> > >
> > > Forall is just syntax sugar that I will add now. Shall be ok on
> > > monday.
> > >
> > > So, I think the major requirement for M1 is the MVEL stuff.
> > >
> > > []s
> > > Edson
> > >
> > > Michael Neale wrote:
> > >
> > > > lol ! other then 3.0.x branch ?? ;)
> > > >
> > > > Edson may know a branch to use, but in any case, Mark is beavering
> > > > away on MVEL integration which will be awesome (I think he wants
> > > MVEL
> > > > for an M1 release).
> > > >
> > > > On 1/12/07, *Dirk Bergstrom* < dirk(a)juniper.net
> > > > <mailto: dirk(a)juniper.net>> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Michael Neale was heard to exclaim, On 01/02/07 05:28:
> > > > > Guys, I am ok to do a M1 release of 3.2 whenever needed
> > > >
> > > > Any news on this? I've been running (in production now) on
> > > code I
> > > > pulled from
> > > > trunk a month or so ago, and it throws NPEs now and
> > > again. I'd
> > > > really like to
> > > > get something a bit more stable. Today's trunk
"revision
> > > 8842"
> > > > doesn't build,
> > > > because the mvel code is Java 1.5.
> > > >
> > > > I'm kinda stuck here, and I'm hoping that someone can
throw me
> > > a
> > > > bone. If M1
> > > > isn't coming soon, was there a particular revision number
that
> > > was
> > > > fairly stable
> > > > that I can use?
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Dirk Bergstrom dirk(a)juniper.net
> > > > <mailto: dirk(a)juniper.net>
> > > > _____________________________________________
> > > > Juniper Networks Inc., Computer Geek
> > > > Tel: 408.745.3182 Fax: 408.745.8905
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > rules-users mailing list
> > > > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:
> > > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>
> > > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > >_______________________________________________
> > > >rules-dev mailing list
> > > > rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> > > >https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Edson Tirelli
> > > Software Engineer - JBoss Rules Core Developer
> > > Office: +55 11 3124-6000
> > > Mobile: +55 11 9218-4151
> > > JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
5:19 a.m.
New subject: [drools-dev] 3.2 M1
I could recomend a good portion of explained documentation and
examples... sometimes its all an user need
to not mess it.
:)
On 13-01-2007, at 18:49, Michael Neale wrote:
It is more common, hopefully over time education and tooling will
make it clearer of the benefits of "the right way", but there seems
to be a law that says turing complete environments/languages will
be used for ANYTHING (and its true from my experience).
On 1/13/07, Peter Lin <woolfel(a)gmail.com> wrote:
haha, users already do the right thing :)
so no one ever needs to worry about a rule being 5 pages with
deeply nested and/or. Joking aside, I am quite shocked at how
frequent users do it. In fact, I would say it's like half the time,
users do stupid things like that.
then they bring in a consultant, who fixes the pile of mess.
peter
On 1/13/07, Michael Neale < michael.neale(a)gmail.com> wrote:
yes, well just cause you can, doesn't mean you should... ;)
I think its needed for the first order logic stuff like not,
exists, forall, *occasionally* (especially "not" I have often
wanted it), but should only be used as a light seasoning.
On 1/12/07, Peter Lin < woolfel(a)gmail.com> wrote:
oh the horror of users nesting statements 4-10 deep.
I fear the poor user won't know what the heck they wrote the next
day :)
peter
On 1/12/07, Edson Tirelli < tirelli(a)post.com> wrote:
Except for the need to change code target to 1.5, core and compiler
are compiling fine now and all tests are green.
I just commited the new Builders. We now support any level of
Conditional Elements nesting.
Forall is just syntax sugar that I will add now. Shall be ok on
monday.
So, I think the major requirement for M1 is the MVEL stuff.
[]s
Edson
Michael Neale wrote:
> lol ! other then 3.0.x branch ?? ;)
>
> Edson may know a branch to use, but in any case, Mark is beavering
> away on MVEL integration which will be awesome (I think he wants
MVEL
> for an M1 release).
>
> On 1/12/07, *Dirk Bergstrom* < dirk(a)juniper.net
> <mailto: dirk(a)juniper.net>> wrote:
>
> Michael Neale was heard to exclaim, On 01/02/07 05:28:
> > Guys, I am ok to do a M1 release of 3.2 whenever needed
>
> Any news on this? I've been running (in production now) on
code I
> pulled from
> trunk a month or so ago, and it throws NPEs now and again. I'd
> really like to
> get something a bit more stable. Today's trunk "revision 8842"
> doesn't build,
> because the mvel code is Java 1.5.
>
> I'm kinda stuck here, and I'm hoping that someone can throw me a
> bone. If M1
> isn't coming soon, was there a particular revision number
that was
> fairly stable
> that I can use?
>
> --
> Dirk Bergstrom dirk(a)juniper.net
> <mailto: dirk(a)juniper.net>
> _____________________________________________
> Juniper Networks Inc., Computer Geek
> Tel: 408.745.3182 Fax: 408.745.8905
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
---
>
>_______________________________________________
>rules-dev mailing list
> rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
>
>
--
Edson Tirelli
Software Engineer - JBoss Rules Core Developer
Office: +55 11 3124-6000
Mobile: +55 11 9218-4151
JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
Felipe Piccolini M.
felipe.piccolini(a)bluesoft.cl
5:02 p.m.
New subject: static imports
Janino and Eclipse JDT both now support static imports while targetting
JDK1.4 bytecode. So I want to move our function support to use static
imports, instead of the current regexp mess we have now. Instead of
having import function, like we have now, I'll just have import static
like java 1.5 has - as we can fully support it now.
Mark
10:42 p.m.
New subject: Rule Flow
There is a working Rule Flow implementation in drools-core now (not in
drools-compiler and the the drl language yet). It works in a similar
manner to activation groups. Each rule can be a in a RuleFlowGroup when
that rule activates instead of being added to the Agenda it is instead
added to the RuleFlowGroup it sits there till it is either de-activated
or the RuleFlowGroup itself is activated. When the RuleFlowGroup is
activated it adds all activations to their respective AgendaGroups, when
all those rules are fired the RuleFlowGroup activates all child
RuleFlowGroups. See the unit test AgendaTest for how it works.
So currently it does branching but joins still need to be done and
possibly allowing multiple flows for the same ruleflow network.
I have removed MVEL from core, so MVEL related tests ('from') aren't
working at the moment. As soon as the jdk1.4 version is working with
MVEL I'll fix that up.
Mark
6317
days inactive
6328
days old
10 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Edson Tirelli -
Felipe Piccolini -
Mark Proctor -
Michael Neale -
Peter Lin