Thank-you Lisa for your honest and candid reply. Enum support was vastly improved in 5.2 and we continue to try to make improvements that will be of benefit to users whilst also endeavouring to achieve our own goals. I hope as we continue to enhance Guvnor you are able to reconsider it in the future.
sent on the move
On 16 Sep 2011 22:45, "lhorton" <LHorton@abclegal.com> wrote:
> The project I'm on needs to be stable by the end of this month for rules. We
> started evaluating Guvnor in April (5.1 release). We ran into several
> problems. For example:
> enums didn't work in guided rules
> loading some rule spreadsheets failed
> we have domain classes with private no-arg constructors and Guvnor didn't
> handle these by reflection
> above classes also couldn't be used in guided tests
> inability to test rules that used globals
> I know some of these have been fixed (you fixed the spreadsheet problem that
> I had, I think) but our evaluation was that we could not wait to see if
> things got fixed in time, and my management had resistance to changing our
> domain model to conform to Guvnor requirements. We had a vision that Guvnor
> would allow non-technical business people write rules, but we ended up
> having to write technical rules due to the various problems.
> We also found that writing DRL and using spreadsheets outside guvnor for our
> rules was working ok, and it was much easier to maintain everything under
> our own IDE (e.g. keeping domain model in synch with rules; archiving;
> Guvnor looks like it is improving with every release. I will keep
> re-evaluating it when new releases come out.
> View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/rules-users-Guvnor-test-scenarios-for-rules-that-use-globals-tp2963618p3343111.html
> Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> rules-users mailing list