Re: [rules-users] Re: [drools-user] More Fun with JBoss Rules IDE and JBoss Rules in general
On 5/24/07, Scott Reed <sreed(a)spamcop.net> wrote:
Unless I never looked at the name except in the source code, I don't see
the much point in having
two names that can be distinguished (due to hashcode inclusion) but have
been semantically
disconnected from the source code rules. If an error occurs in one of
those rules, how will you know
which one the message refers to? How will you make sense out of the log?
It makes more sense to me
to replace non-alphanumeric characters with alphanumerics as Ron's team
member proposed.
Yeah, it's true that including a hashcode allows you to go from the "real"
name to a unique generated one, but doesn't really help you go back the
other way, unless you ALSO store the original name as a string in the rule,
where you can use it to refer to the rule by name in exceptions and so
forth.
An alpha replacement could be difficult given the number of potential
non-alpha characters.
The other option, probably more work, would simply be to improve the
validation and error reporting such that it was clear which two
special-characters-included rules conflicted, and why they conflict.
e.g. "RNR Qty == RNR Adjustment Qty : 100% Tolerance" has the same
translated rules name as "RNR Qty >= RNR Adjustment Qty : 100% Tolerance";
please rename one of these rules.
That'd make the problem a little more clear, but I don't like it as much.
Anyway -- I'm not writing the code, so I'll just let Edson et. al figure it
out. :)
- Geoffrey
--
Geoffrey Wiseman
Attachments:
- attachment.html (text/html — 1.9 KB)