[rules-users] "in" syntax breaking the Rete Tree

[droolster]

@Mark,

"We saw this message..." - then why wasn't the advice given to raise a bug
earlier? Why did it take 8 posts to eventually get to that point? It's a
waste of time and effort, and a lack of appreciation for people who are
trying to promote your product in their industry and workplace.

Your other point about the Rete Viewer being low priority. For developers
who are new to Drools (like me), one of the assurances we get that our rules
are properly defined is the Rete viewer. If the Rete Viewer shows errors,
then it gives doubts about whether the rules are properly defined. In my
case, the rules still function correctly but if I am going take my rule
engine into a Production environment I want all the assurances I can get.

Thank you for eventually replying to my post.



--
View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/in-operator-breaking-the-Rete-Tree-tp4028148p4028229.html
Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.