6:03 p.m.
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
7:40 p.m.
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
7:59 p.m.
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
8:07 p.m.
Forgot to mention the context of my thoughts.
I am not sure what are the plans for integration of Eclipse, Windup,
Migration site and Customer Portal; but it's obvious that the "Rule"
will be present everywhere. So I think we will need some common class
with basic Rule info, which will be part of the API.
Not sure if it all should be the same class, maybe not. But at least for
Eclipse module, having a RuleModel would be beneficial, since we will
have some automatic converter for the Eclipse <--> Windup API, and we
might want to show more about the rule in Eclipse than just a cryptic ID.
In Windup itself, we might look up the rule in some Map, but what's the
advantage against simply adding the reference to anything added by a
rule? This could be even automatized later, simply by intercepting the
calls to services somehow.
Ondra
On 22.7.2014 02:59, 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
9:09 a.m.
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
9:57 a.m.
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> 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."
10:30 a.m.
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
<mailto:jsightle@redhat.com>> 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 <mailto:windup-dev@lists.jboss.org>
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/windup-dev
>> _______________________________________________
>> windup-dev mailing list
>> windup-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:windup-dev@lists.jboss.org>
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/windup-dev
> _______________________________________________
> windup-dev mailing list
> windup-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:windup-dev@lists.jboss.org>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/windup-dev
_______________________________________________
windup-dev mailing list
windup-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:windup-dev@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
1:28 p.m.
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
> <mailto:jsightle@redhat.com>> 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
<mailto:windup-dev@lists.jboss.org>
> >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/windup-dev
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> windup-dev mailing list
> >> windup-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:windup-dev@lists.jboss.org>
> >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/windup-dev
> > _______________________________________________
> > windup-dev mailing list
> > windup-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:windup-dev@lists.jboss.org>
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/windup-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> windup-dev mailing list
> windup-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:windup-dev@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
5:09 p.m.
I think doing it with some layer above frames would be hard. Doing it
within a frames module might not be, though. I haven't really dug into
how easy it is to extensively monitor Vertex changes this way.
On 07/22/2014 02:28 PM, Ondrej Zizka 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
>> <mailto:jsightle@redhat.com>> 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
<mailto:windup-dev@lists.jboss.org>
>> >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/windup-dev
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> windup-dev mailing list
>> >> windup-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
<mailto:windup-dev@lists.jboss.org>
>> >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/windup-dev
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > windup-dev mailing list
>> > windup-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:windup-dev@lists.jboss.org>
>> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/windup-dev
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> windup-dev mailing list
>> windup-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:windup-dev@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
6:45 p.m.
There are graph listeners already I'm pretty sure.
Brad Davis
Red Hat Consulting
Email: bdavis(a)redhat.com | c:980.226.7865 |http://www.redhat.com
On Jul 22, 2014, at 2:28 PM, Ondrej Zizka <ozizka(a)redhat.com>
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>
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
9:13 a.m.
It does look like there is an EventGraph that could make this easier:
http://www.tinkerpop.com/docs/javadocs/blueprints/2.0.0/com/tinkerpop/blu...
I have filed a JIRA for us to enable this:
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WINDUP-149
On 07/22/2014 07:45 PM, Brad Davis wrote:
There are graph listeners already I'm pretty sure.
Brad Davis
Red Hat Consulting
Email: bdavis(a)redhat.com <mailto:bdavis@redhat.com> | c:980.226.7865
<tel:980.226.7865> |http://www.redhat.com <http://www.redhat.com/>
On Jul 22, 2014, at 2:28 PM, Ondrej Zizka <ozizka(a)redhat.com
<mailto:ozizka@redhat.com>> 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 <mailto:jsightle@redhat.com>> 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
<mailto:windup-dev@lists.jboss.org>
>>> >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/windup-dev
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> windup-dev mailing list
>>> >> windup-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
<mailto:windup-dev@lists.jboss.org>
>>> >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/windup-dev
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > windup-dev mailing list
>>> > windup-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
<mailto:windup-dev@lists.jboss.org>
>>> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/windup-dev
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> windup-dev mailing list
>>> windup-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:windup-dev@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 <mailto:windup-dev@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
3825
days inactive
3829
days old
11 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Brad Davis -
Jess Sightler -
Lincoln Baxter, III -
Ondrej Zizka