Re: [rules-users] How to track constraint truth [was: Non short circuit ANDing]
I can understand the "feeling anxious" bit but I think that you foster this
feeling with a bad reason. What Davide and I posted are both declarations
of a more complex fact evaluation - in my case it is necessarily written
as if the API would provide such a rule declaration.
Don't be confused by the introduction of "if" in the
"experimental"
(Davide) syntax. This isn't any more non-declarative than the eval()
of old.
-W
On 04/02/2013, Lance <lance.leverich(a)gmail.com> wrote:
While I am following this discussion with great interest, I am also
feeling
a
little anxious about what I see here. In the parent thread, I recall that
there was some talk of this functionality being contained in some kind of
adjunct, or "outside the rule engine", application. I get the impression
that what is now being discussed are changes to the rule-language that
would
allow this functionality to exist within the primary rule-engine. If I am
mistaken (which I hope I am), please let me know.
My concern about this stems from the fact that I have spent the better part
of two years telling Java developers that this wasn't merely a different
language for them to learn, but is more of a shift in the way that they
think. The direction this discussion seems to be going (again, I hope I am
misreading it), is to back away from the declarative programming approach.
--
View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/rules-users-How-to-track-constraint-tru...
Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users