[rules-dev] Reminder [was: Inconsistent option property naming]

[Geoffrey De Smet]

Would it break backwards compatibility when changed?

Op 21-02-13 15:49, Wolfgang Laun schreef:
> After a period of more than 24 hours, this point is still open, and
> the question of adding or not adding the dot leaves me in a tight
> spot.
> -W
>
> On 20/02/2013, Wolfgang Laun <wolfgang.laun at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Looking at
>>
>>    WorkItemHandlerOption implements MultiValueKnowledgeSessionOption
>>
>> contains
>>
>>    public static final String PROPERTY_NAME = "drools.workItemHandlers";
>>
>> which is used as
>>
>>   public String getPropertyName() {
>>          return PROPERTY_NAME+name;
>>      }
>>
>> so that some actual property setting would have to be the ugly
>> concatenation
>>
>>    drools.workItemHandlerstheName = theHandler
>>
>> All (!) other multi-valued options  use a period to separate the fixed
>> part from the user-defined tag, i.e.,
>>
>>   public static final String PROPERTY_NAME = "drools.workItemHandlers.";
>>
>> -W
>>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-dev mailing list
> rules-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
>