[rules-users] How to track constraint truth [was: Non short circuit ANDing]

[Wolfgang Laun]

I can understand the "feeling anxious" bit but I think that you foster this
feeling with a bad reason. What Davide and I posted are both declarations
of a more complex fact evaluation -  in my case it is necessarily written
as if the API would provide such a rule declaration.

Don't be confused by the introduction of "if" in the "experimental"
(Davide) syntax. This isn't any more non-declarative than the eval()
of old.

-W

On 04/02/2013, Lance <lance.leverich at gmail.com> wrote:
> While I am following this discussion with great interest, I am also feeling
> a
> little anxious about what I see here. In the parent thread, I recall that
> there was some talk of this functionality being contained in some kind of
> adjunct, or "outside the rule engine", application. I get the impression
> that what is now being discussed are changes to the rule-language that
> would
> allow this functionality to exist within the primary rule-engine. If I am
> mistaken (which I hope I am), please let me know.
>
> My concern about this stems from the fact that I have spent the better part
> of two years telling Java developers that this wasn't merely a different
> language for them to learn, but is more of a shift in the way that they
> think. The direction this discussion seems to be going (again, I hope I am
> misreading it), is to back away from the declarative programming approach.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/rules-users-How-to-track-constraint-truth-was-Non-short-circuit-ANDing-tp4022021p4022041.html
> Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>