I do remember this discussion, and I think that while it's one possible solution, it's not really beneficial to have the separated out into non-java files. In this particular scenario, I do think that writing multiple rules is probably not what we want, but we do probably want to keep the data in Java, in the ConfigurationProvider or a closely related class.

Matej was just doing what he thought we asked him to do, literally port the rules 1:1. He now understands we meant "port the functionality." :)

On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Ondrej Zizka <ozizka@redhat.com> wrote:

Hi,

just a note on $SUBJ. I may be wrong, but I recall we agreed that the
old rules, since being so monotonous, could have one rule, which would
load the simple data from a static file(s), and one rule which would
execute them. E.g. a simple .csv file with regex, hint, reference. Or
JSON/XML if needed.

Now Matej creates one java rule per each legacy regex.
Is there some change in the previous plan?
Both solutions have obvious advantages, I just want to know what was the
decision.

Thanks,
Ondra
_______________________________________________
windup-dev mailing list
windup-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/windup-dev

--
Lincoln Baxter, III
http://ocpsoft.org
"Simpler is better."