Hi, The time to split Guvnor into "Guvnor" (common asset management/generic project framework) and "Drools IDE" (Editors for Drools assets) has arrived. This is a list of the current Guvnor modules and a proposal as to the split. Please feedback any comments - I'd like to split next week (and perform related GAV changes):- guvnor-commons guvnor-comons-builder ---> drools-ide guvnor-commons-data ---> split applicable components into guvnor and drools-ide(sub-package "tables" is guvnor; the remainder are drools-ide). guvnor-commons-security ---> drools-ide guvnor-commons-security-api ---> drools-ide guvnor-commons-ui ---> split applicable components into guvnor and drools-ide (some classes in sub-package "widgets" are drools-ide and sub-package "workitems" is drools-ide but can be deleted). guvnor-core guvnor-core-services ---> guvnor guvnor-datamodel ---> drools-ide guvnor-project ---> drools-ide guvnor-workingsets ---> delete (not used) guvnor-editors guvnor-categories-editor ---> drools-ide guvnor-default-editor ---> drools-ide guvnor-drl-text-editor ---> drools-ide guvnor-dsl-text-edutor ---> drools-ide guvnor-dtable-xls-editor ---> drools-ide guvnor-enum-editor ---> drools-ide guvnor-explorer ---> guvnor guvnor-factmodel-editor ---> drools-ide guvnor-globals-editor ---> drools-ide guvnor-guided-dtable-editor ---> drools-ide guvnor-guided-rule-editor ---> drools-ide guvnor-guided-scorecard-editor ---> drools-ide guvnor-guided-template-editor ---> drools-ide guvnor-inbox ---> guvnor guvnor-m2repo-editor ---> guvnor guvnor-project-config-editor ---> drools-ide guvnor-project-editor ---> drools-ide guvnor-scorecard-xls-editor ---> drools-ide guvnor-search-screen ---> guvnor guvnor-test-scenario-editor ---> drools-ide Worthy of mention is that the "Project Editor" becomes a Drools specific project editor (as it needs to handle both pom.xml and kmodule.xml). There is no "Project Editor" out of the box for Guvnor. guvnor-webapp guvnor-showcase ---> drools-ide guvnor-widgets guvnor-config-resource-widget ---> drools-ide guvnor-decorated-grid-widget ---> drools-ide guvnor-error-messages-widget ---> delete (not used) guvnor-metadata-widget ---> guvnor guvnor-view-source-widget ---> drools-ide GAV changes drools-ide components would adopt the "org.drools.ide" GroupId; guvnor components would adopt the "org.kie.guvnor" GroupId. Package names would be corrected to follow the GAV-package naming convention. With kind regards, Mike _______________________________________________ rules-dev mailing list rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev

I've put together this: https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1zovHiCJu0TnlKDuSq4xvRcuhThiR7G3ZdOWob... showing my perceptions. Please take a few minutes to look and feedback... I'll be checking GAVs (and the split) with Mark before making the changes... On 26 March 2013 11:35, Toni Rikkola <toni.rikkola(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: I propose that we add one more layer between drools-ide and guvnor. Name could be guvnor-kie-ide or kie-ide-guvnor. 1. Generic Guvnor 2. Kie-family modules shared between layer #3 3. Drools (drools-ide) / jBPM / OptaPlanner For example the build services we have in guvnor-project will most likely be used by jBPM Guvnor , Drools Guvnor and OptaPlanner Guvnor. A clear separation between the layers would help us to keep circular dependencies away and make the code cleaner. Toni On Mar 26, 2013, at 12:36 PM, Michael Anstis wrote: > Hi, > > The time to split Guvnor into "Guvnor" (common asset management/generic project framework) and "Drools IDE" (Editors for Drools assets) has arrived. > > This is a list of the current Guvnor modules and a proposal as to the split. Please feedback any comments - I'd like to split next week (and perform related GAV changes):- > > guvnor-commons > guvnor-comons-builder ---> drools-ide > guvnor-commons-data ---> split applicable components into guvnor and drools-ide(sub-package "tables" is guvnor; the remainder are drools-ide). > guvnor-commons-security ---> drools-ide > guvnor-commons-security-api ---> drools-ide > guvnor-commons-ui ---> split applicable components into guvnor and drools-ide (some classes in sub-package "widgets" are drools-ide and sub-package "workitems" is drools-ide but can be deleted). > > guvnor-core > guvnor-core-services ---> guvnor > guvnor-datamodel ---> drools-ide > guvnor-project ---> drools-ide > guvnor-workingsets ---> delete (not used) > > guvnor-editors > guvnor-categories-editor ---> drools-ide > guvnor-default-editor ---> drools-ide > guvnor-drl-text-editor ---> drools-ide > guvnor-dsl-text-edutor ---> drools-ide > guvnor-dtable-xls-editor ---> drools-ide > guvnor-enum-editor ---> drools-ide > guvnor-explorer ---> guvnor > guvnor-factmodel-editor ---> drools-ide > guvnor-globals-editor ---> drools-ide > guvnor-guided-dtable-editor ---> drools-ide > guvnor-guided-rule-editor ---> drools-ide > guvnor-guided-scorecard-editor ---> drools-ide > guvnor-guided-template-editor ---> drools-ide > guvnor-inbox ---> guvnor > guvnor-m2repo-editor ---> guvnor > guvnor-project-config-editor ---> drools-ide > guvnor-project-editor ---> drools-ide > guvnor-scorecard-xls-editor ---> drools-ide > guvnor-search-screen ---> guvnor > guvnor-test-scenario-editor ---> drools-ide > Worthy of mention is that the "Project Editor" becomes a Drools specific project editor (as it needs to handle both pom.xml and kmodule.xml). There is no "Project Editor" out of the box for Guvnor. > > > guvnor-webapp > guvnor-showcase ---> drools-ide > > guvnor-widgets > guvnor-config-resource-widget ---> drools-ide > guvnor-decorated-grid-widget ---> drools-ide > guvnor-error-messages-widget ---> delete (not used) > guvnor-metadata-widget ---> guvnor > guvnor-view-source-widget ---> drools-ide > > GAV changes > > drools-ide components would adopt the "org.drools.ide" GroupId; guvnor components would adopt the "org.kie.guvnor" GroupId. > > Package names would be corrected to follow the GAV-package naming convention. > > With kind regards, > > Mike > _______________________________________________ > 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

IWE vs IDE. The new web framework can be a console, a workbench, an IDE, or "work" area. We can't use the words suite or platform - as that confuses with RHT product names. So we were thinking of just using KIE IDE, as a generic work to refer to all of them - but i think "development" in the IDE might confuse people, especially where it's being used for tasks lists. So what about IWE, Integrated Work Environment. As a more generic version of IDE. So instead of kie-ide as the base, we'd call it kie-iwe as the base. Mark On 28 Mar 2013, at 06:40, Toni Rikkola <toni.rikkola(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Yep, that looks good. Toni On Mar 27, 2013, at 3:33 PM, Michael Anstis wrote: I've put together this: https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1zovHiCJu0TnlKDuSq4xvRcuhThiR7G3ZdOWob... my perceptions. Please take a few minutes to look and feedback... I'll be checking GAVs (and the split) with Mark before making the changes... On 26 March 2013 11:35, Toni Rikkola <toni.rikkola(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > I propose that we add one more layer between drools-ide and guvnor. Name > could be guvnor-kie-ide or kie-ide-guvnor. > > 1. Generic Guvnor > 2. Kie-family modules shared between layer #3 > 3. Drools (drools-ide) / jBPM / OptaPlanner > > For example the build services we have in guvnor-project will most likely > be used by jBPM Guvnor , Drools Guvnor and OptaPlanner Guvnor. A clear > separation between the layers would help us to keep circular dependencies > away and make the code cleaner. > > Toni > > On Mar 26, 2013, at 12:36 PM, Michael Anstis wrote: > > Hi, > > The time to split Guvnor into "Guvnor" (common asset management/generic > project framework) and "Drools IDE" (Editors for Drools assets) has arrived. > > This is a list of the current Guvnor modules and a proposal as to the > split. Please feedback any comments - I'd like to split next week (and > perform related GAV changes):- > > *guvnor-commons > * > > 1. guvnor-comons-builder ---> drools-ide > 2. guvnor-commons-data ---> split applicable components into guvnor > and drools-ide(sub-package "tables" is guvnor; the remainder are > drools-ide). > 3. guvnor-commons-security ---> drools-ide > 4. guvnor-commons-security-api ---> drools-ide > 5. guvnor-commons-ui ---> split applicable components into guvnor > and drools-ide (some classes in sub-package "widgets" are drools-ide and > sub-package "workitems" is drools-ide but can be deleted). > > > *guvnor-core* > > 1. guvnor-core-services ---> guvnor > 2. guvnor-datamodel ---> drools-ide > 3. guvnor-project ---> drools-ide > 4. guvnor-workingsets ---> delete (not used) > > * > guvnor-editors > * > > 1. guvnor-categories-editor ---> drools-ide > 2. guvnor-default-editor ---> drools-ide > 3. guvnor-drl-text-editor ---> drools-ide > 4. guvnor-dsl-text-edutor ---> drools-ide > 5. guvnor-dtable-xls-editor ---> drools-ide > 6. guvnor-enum-editor ---> drools-ide > 7. guvnor-explorer ---> guvnor > 8. guvnor-factmodel-editor ---> drools-ide > 9. guvnor-globals-editor ---> drools-ide > 10. guvnor-guided-dtable-editor ---> drools-ide > 11. guvnor-guided-rule-editor ---> drools-ide > 12. guvnor-guided-scorecard-editor ---> drools-ide > 13. guvnor-guided-template-editor ---> drools-ide > 14. guvnor-inbox ---> guvnor > 15. guvnor-m2repo-editor ---> guvnor > 16. guvnor-project-config-editor ---> drools-ide > 17. guvnor-project-editor ---> drools-ide > 18. guvnor-scorecard-xls-editor ---> drools-ide > 19. guvnor-search-screen ---> guvnor > 20. guvnor-test-scenario-editor ---> drools-ide > > Worthy of mention is that the "Project Editor" becomes a Drools specific > project editor (as it needs to handle both pom.xml and kmodule.xml). There > is no "Project Editor" out of the box for Guvnor. > > > *guvnor-webapp > * > > 1. guvnor-showcase ---> drools-ide > > > *guvnor-widgets* > > 1. guvnor-config-resource-widget ---> drools-ide > 2. guvnor-decorated-grid-widget ---> drools-ide > 3. guvnor-error-messages-widget ---> delete (not used) > 4. guvnor-metadata-widget ---> guvnor > 5. guvnor-view-source-widget ---> drools-ide > > > *GAV changes > * > drools-ide components would adopt the "org.drools.ide" GroupId; guvnor > components would adopt the "org.kie.guvnor" GroupId. > > Package names would be corrected to follow the GAV-package naming > convention. > > With kind regards, > > Mike > _______________________________________________ > 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

On 02/04/2013, Michael Anstis <michael.anstis(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > I'm easy with "W" instead of "D". How about "Integrated Work Studio" > instead of "Environment"? > Seems to me that people have forgotten about the good old work bench. Too nutsy-and-boltsy for the brighter future? -W _______________________________________________ rules-dev mailing list rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev

On 02/04/2013, Michael Anstis <michael.anstis(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > I'm easy with "W" instead of "D". How about "Integrated Work Studio" > instead of "Environment"? > Seems to me that people have forgotten about the good old work bench. Too nutsy-and-boltsy for the brighter future? -W _______________________________________________ rules-dev mailing list rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev

I will be starting the split tomorrow. On 2 April 2013 11:23, Mark Proctor <mproctor(a)codehaus.org&gt; wrote: studio might be a problem, like suite and platform, it might overlap with something they prefer in the RHT product names. We could have "workbench" instead of "work". That would still be under IWE. Integrated Workbench Environment. Or we could drop the Enviornement and have IWB - Integrated WorkBench. Mostly I want to make sure we don't chose something that skewer people's thinking that it's only suitable for a specific use case, hence my search for a more generic term. Also that we find a suitably short acronym. This framework can form the basis of a variety of use cases. IDE - Integrated Development Environment IWE - Integrated WorkBench Environment. IWB - Integrated WorkBench AWD - Advanced WorkBench Mark On 2 Apr 2013, at 10:05, Wolfgang Laun <wolfgang.laun(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > On 02/04/2013, Michael Anstis <michael.anstis(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >> I'm easy with "W" instead of "D". How about "Integrated Work Studio" >> instead of "Environment"? >> > > Seems to me that people have forgotten about the good old work bench. > Too nutsy-and-boltsy for the brighter future? > > -W > _______________________________________________ > 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

+1 for IWB On Apr 10, 2013, at 3:19 PM, Mark Proctor <mproctor(a)codehaus.org&gt; wrote: > Did we decided on an extension, instead of IDE? > > Mark > On 10 Apr 2013, at 17:11, Michael Anstis <michael.anstis(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > >> I will be starting the split tomorrow. >> >> >> >> On 2 April 2013 11:23, Mark Proctor <mproctor(a)codehaus.org&gt; wrote: >>> studio might be a problem, like suite and platform, it might overlap with something they prefer in the RHT product names. >>> >>> We could have "workbench" instead of "work". That would still be under IWE. Integrated Workbench Environment. Or we could drop the Enviornement and have IWB - Integrated WorkBench. >>> >>> Mostly I want to make sure we don't chose something that skewer people's thinking that it's only suitable for a specific use case, hence my search for a more generic term. Also that we find a suitably short acronym. This framework can form the basis of a variety of use cases. >>> >>> IDE - Integrated Development Environment >>> IWE - Integrated WorkBench Environment. >>> IWB - Integrated WorkBench >>> AWD - Advanced WorkBench >>> >>> Mark >>> >>> On 2 Apr 2013, at 10:05, Wolfgang Laun <wolfgang.laun(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >>> >>> > On 02/04/2013, Michael Anstis <michael.anstis(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >>> >> I'm easy with "W" instead of "D". How about "Integrated Work Studio" >>> >> instead of "Environment"? >>> >> >>> > >>> > Seems to me that people have forgotten about the good old work bench. >>> > Too nutsy-and-boltsy for the brighter future? >>> > >>> > -W >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > 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

Dear All, I am new to use drool. Since I have a large number of packages, is there any Way that I Upload facts on One Place (e.g. Global area) and Share it in all packages. I shall be thankful for your help. Best Regards, Nasir Sent from my iPad On 10.04.2013, at 20:24, Alexandre Porcelli <porcelli(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: +1 for IWB On Apr 10, 2013, at 3:19 PM, Mark Proctor <mproctor(a)codehaus.org&gt; wrote: Did we decided on an extension, instead of IDE? Mark On 10 Apr 2013, at 17:11, Michael Anstis <michael.anstis(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: I will be starting the split tomorrow. On 2 April 2013 11:23, Mark Proctor <mproctor(a)codehaus.org&gt; wrote: > studio might be a problem, like suite and platform, it might overlap with > something they prefer in the RHT product names. > > We could have "workbench" instead of "work". That would still be under > IWE. Integrated Workbench Environment. Or we could drop the Enviornement > and have IWB - Integrated WorkBench. > > Mostly I want to make sure we don't chose something that skewer people's > thinking that it's only suitable for a specific use case, hence my search > for a more generic term. Also that we find a suitably short acronym. This > framework can form the basis of a variety of use cases. > > IDE - Integrated Development Environment > IWE - Integrated WorkBench Environment. > IWB - Integrated WorkBench > AWD - Advanced WorkBench > > Mark > > On 2 Apr 2013, at 10:05, Wolfgang Laun <wolfgang.laun(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > > > On 02/04/2013, Michael Anstis <michael.anstis(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > >> I'm easy with "W" instead of "D". How about "Integrated Work Studio" > >> instead of "Environment"? > >> > > > > Seems to me that people have forgotten about the good old work bench. > > Too nutsy-and-boltsy for the brighter future? > > > > -W > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 _______________________________________________ rules-dev mailing list rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev

I was going to use the following Group/Artifact IDs: org.drools:drools-iwb for Drools editors org.kie:guvnor for generic Guvnor. org.kie:kie-iwb-shared for the module for things that both Drools and jBPM editors need. I'd plan on kie-ide becoming kie-iwb. On 10 Apr 2013 19:19, "Mark Proctor" <mproctor(a)codehaus.org&gt; wrote: > Did we decided on an extension, instead of IDE? > > Mark > On 10 Apr 2013, at 17:11, Michael Anstis <michael.anstis(a)gmail.com&gt; > wrote: > > I will be starting the split tomorrow. > > > > On 2 April 2013 11:23, Mark Proctor <mproctor(a)codehaus.org&gt; wrote: > >> studio might be a problem, like suite and platform, it might overlap >> with something they prefer in the RHT product names. >> >> We could have "workbench" instead of "work". That would still be under >> IWE. Integrated Workbench Environment. Or we could drop the Enviornement >> and have IWB - Integrated WorkBench. >> >> Mostly I want to make sure we don't chose something that skewer people's >> thinking that it's only suitable for a specific use case, hence my search >> for a more generic term. Also that we find a suitably short acronym. This >> framework can form the basis of a variety of use cases. >> >> IDE - Integrated Development Environment >> IWE - Integrated WorkBench Environment. >> IWB - Integrated WorkBench >> AWD - Advanced WorkBench >> >> Mark >> >> On 2 Apr 2013, at 10:05, Wolfgang Laun <wolfgang.laun(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >> >> > On 02/04/2013, Michael Anstis <michael.anstis(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >> >> I'm easy with "W" instead of "D". How about "Integrated Work Studio" >> >> instead of "Environment"? >> >> >> > >> > Seems to me that people have forgotten about the good old work bench. >> > Too nutsy-and-boltsy for the brighter future? >> > >> > -W >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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 >