Any time frame for the final release? I played with CR1 and it does not seem stable.

Sent from my iPad

On Apr 26, 2012, at 2:28 PM, Michael Anstis <michael.anstis@gmail.com> wrote:

Yes, if you use 5.4 - this supports BRL fragments as columns. Rule Templates also support DSLs.

HOWEVER - and this is probably an issue - DSLs in Guvnor currently only support literal values.

So if you use a DSL in either a Decision Table or Rule Template you cannot specify different values in the table for the DSL place-holder.

On 26 April 2012 19:21, Sean Su <sean.x.su@gmail.com> wrote:

Can DSL be presented as the decision table as well? Any examples if yes?

Thanks.

Sean

Sent from my iPad

On Apr 26, 2012, at 1:14 PM, Vincent LEGENDRE <vincent.legendre@eurodecision.com> wrote:

Should use a DSL then.

De: "Sean Su" <sean.x.su@gmail.com>
À: "Rules Users List" <rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
Envoyé: Jeudi 26 Avril 2012 19:06:57
Objet: Re: [rules-users] Guvnor guided editor and non argument constructor

What I am prototyping is part of the event processing (with or without fusion). I want to use the rules created by the Guvnor to create the new events. However, as you would understand, once the event has been created, it should not be modified as it happened in the past.

So I am trying to avoid setters if possible.

Sean

Sent from my iPad

On Apr 26, 2012, at 12:49 PM, Vincent LEGENDRE <vincent.legendre@eurodecision.com> wrote:

JavaBeans convention : all default constructible and plenty of setters (for writeable properties) and getters (for readeable properties)

De: "Michael Anstis" <michael.anstis@gmail.com>
À: "Rules Users List" <rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
Envoyé: Jeudi 26 Avril 2012 15:40:27
Objet: Re: [rules-users] Guvnor guided editor and non argument constructor

Seems reasonable enough.

On 26 April 2012 14:36, Sean Su <sean.x.su@gmail.com> wrote:

It seems that the new fact created by the guided editor must be from
the java class that has the default non argument constructor in
Guvnor. There seems no way we can customize it to pass arguments in.
This would force us to provide setters to the object.

Is this a true statement?

Thanks

Sean

Sent from my iPad
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users

_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users

_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users

_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users

_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users

_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users

_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users