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

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&gt; 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

Was fine for the initially implementaiton, woudl rather have it fully integrated for 4.0 final. Mark Michael Neale wrote: great, not sure if I will do this for 4.0 though, will see, but certainly this sounds like it can work nicely. Keeping it decoupled as it was is/was probably the best thing, definitely the right way to go. So it ruleflow still "experimental" class for 4.0? or is it now officially part of the core? Michael On 5/22/07, Kris Verlaenen < kris.verlaenen(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > > 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&gt; 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 >