You can't be much worse off if you add "package foo" to the template.
Or is there a problem with this obvious workaround?
-W
On 27 August 2010 18:25, drdaveg <drdaveg(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I am trying to incorporate several templates in a single output drl file.
According to the 5.0.1 docs "package" is optional:
Example 5.3. Rule template file: templates
template header
parameter-name-1
...
parameter-name-n
package ... # optional
However, it seems that the drools parser uses "package" as a keyword to
identify when it has passed header information. Not having a "package"
specifier in either 5.0.1 or 5.1.1 yields:
java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: value rule "rules for reject non-header
@{id}" is not a valid column definition
at
org.drools.template.parser.ColumnFactory.getColumn(ColumnFactory.java:34)
which cannot be overcome by tricks like
// package a.b.c
or
# package a.b.c
Are other people experiencing this? Is there a fix planned for the parser?
--
View this message in context:
http://drools-java-rules-engine.46999.n3.nabble.com/Template-bug-on-packa...
Sent from the Drools - User mailing list archive at
Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users