Re: [windup-dev] RuleModel et al.

On Jul 22, 2014, at 2:28 PM, Ondrej Zizka <ozizka(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: 1) A reference to the rule being executed could be made accessible from a context. 2) Some layer above Frames could catch any creation/alteration of vertices and link them. Haven't seen Frames guts, perhaps not doable easily at the moment. > On 22.7.2014 17:30, Jess Sightler wrote: > But how does it know which vertices were created (or modified) by that rule? > >> On 07/22/2014 10:57 AM, Lincoln Baxter, III wrote: >> The rule executor (RuleSubset) could actually handle doing this I think. For each rule it executes, set the ID, the version, and the phase in the graph (and possibly also a stringification of what the rule consists of) >> >> >>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Jess Sightler <jsightle(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >>> Oh, I see... if we are going to do this, I could see it having a few things: >>> >>> 1. RuleID - A string uniquely identifying the rule >>> 2. Rule Version - The version of the addon containing the rule >>> 3. RulePhase - The phase during which the rule was run >>> >>> I don't think that this belongs in reporting, though. I am also not sure >>> how easy it would be to automate the population of these fields, though >>> it might be possible with some tweaks to frames. >>> >>> On 07/21/2014 08:59 PM, Ondrej Zizka wrote: >>> > So far, an ID and a reference to the Ruleset. The ruleset then would >>> > probably have further info, like, version etc. >>> > >>> > https://github.com/OndraZizka/windup/blob/3940b146f811ab6e5fff1cb6c6def71... >>> > >>> > Anyway, even if it was just an ID, OOP principles suggest to encapsulate >>> > that ID to a type. My experience agrees. I may be wrong though. >>> > >>> > Ondra >>> > >>> > >>> > On 22.7.2014 02:40, Jess Sightler wrote: >>> >> I'm not opposed to this idea... except that I don't know what a >>> >> "RuleModel" would actually contain, other than the ID. >>> >> >>> >> What are you proposing it to contain? >>> >> >>> >> On 07/21/2014 07:03 PM, Ondrej Zizka wrote: >>> >>> We should have $subj: >>> >>> >>> >>> We need to refer to the rules in the report. >>> >>> We agreed to store all information in the graph. >>> >>> Current ID is not guaranteed to be the same over runs. >>> >>> Current ID has no namespaces. >>> >>> >>> >>> my2c. >>> >>> Ondra >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>> windup-dev mailing list >>> >>> windup-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>> >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/windup-dev >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> windup-dev mailing list >>> >> windup-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>> >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/windup-dev >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > windup-dev mailing list >>> > windup-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/windup-dev >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> windup-dev mailing list >>> windup-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/windup-dev >> >> >> >> -- >> Lincoln Baxter, III >> http://ocpsoft.org >> "Simpler is better." >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> windup-dev mailing list >> windup-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/windup-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > windup-dev mailing list > windup-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/windup-dev _______________________________________________ windup-dev mailing list windup-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/windup-dev