[rules-dev] Re: ruleflow processes

[Michael Neale]

great, not sure if I will do this for 4.0 though, will see, but certainly
this sounds like it can work nicely.

Keeping it decoupled as it was is/was probably the best thing, definitely
the right way to go.

So it ruleflow still "experimental" class for 4.0? or is it now officially
part of the core?

Michael

On 5/22/07, Kris Verlaenen <kris.verlaenen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The reason it was specified in a separate class is that it is still
> more experimental, and I didn't want to interfere with the core stuff
> too much.  I don't see any real downsides, ruleflows are indeed just
> another asset I think.
>
> Kris
>
> On 5/22/07, Michael Neale <michael.neale at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Kris, looking at the ruleflow stuff (not the core, but the .rf stuff), I
> > have a suggestion on how to make it more integrated with the
> ruleset/package
> > structure.
> >
> > At the moment Ruleflow packages are a seperate entity that is merged
> into a
> > RuleBase as needed.
> >
> > Does anyone have any objections if we add the ability to have ruleflow
> as
> > part of a rule Package itself? (thus when that package is added to the
> > rulebase, all the processes for ruleflow go along with it)? so a
> ruleflow.rf
> > file for example becomes just another asset like a drl?
> >
> > Kris? thoughts? downsides?
> > No need to change the current API.
> >
> > Michael
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-dev/attachments/20070525/e16cc80f/attachment.html