[rules-dev] Re: ruleflow processes

[Mark Proctor]

Was fine for the initially implementaiton, woudl rather have it fully 
integrated for 4.0 final.

Mark
Michael Neale wrote:
> 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 
> <mailto: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
>     <mailto: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/a9d527c1/attachment.html