What do people think of insisting on a file per type. So functions go in one file, rules in another and declare models in another. They all end up in the same package object, but we enforce a separation at both the file and api level. kbuilder.addRulesFromURL( url ); kbuilder.addModelFromURL( url ); kbuilder.addFunctionsFromURL( url ); kbuilder.addProcessFromURL( url ); Really more thinking about orthogonality of api and design here. We have the following situation kbuilder.addPackageFromXML() kbuilder.addProcessFromXML() Processes live in a package, so to a package there is no difference from a process to a rule - yet we are losing that orthogonality in the api to handle the special case. What do people think, I'm just trying to find a better way to get some language orthogonality. I don't think we are likely to do this, but just throwing it out for discussion. I think ideally we would like kbuilder.addResource( url/reader ), but not sure if we can easily determine each file type, we can't do it by file extensions as readers have none. Mark _______________________________________________ rules-dev mailing list rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev