[windup-dev] RuleModel et al.

[Ondrej Zizka]

1) A reference to the rule being executed could be made accessible from 
a context.
2) Some layer above Frames could catch any creation/alteration of 
vertices and link them.

Haven't seen Frames guts, perhaps not doable easily at the moment.


On 22.7.2014 17:30, Jess Sightler wrote:
> But how does it know which vertices were created (or modified) by that 
> rule?
>
> On 07/22/2014 10:57 AM, Lincoln Baxter, III wrote:
>> The rule executor (RuleSubset) could actually handle doing this I 
>> think. For each rule it executes, set the ID, the version, and the 
>> phase in the graph (and possibly also a stringification of what the 
>> rule consists of)
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Jess Sightler <jsightle at redhat.com 
>> <mailto:jsightle at redhat.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     Oh, I see... if we are going to do this, I could see it having a
>>     few things:
>>
>>     1. RuleID - A string uniquely identifying the rule
>>     2. Rule Version - The version of the addon containing the rule
>>     3. RulePhase - The phase during which the rule was run
>>
>>     I don't think that this belongs in reporting, though. I am also
>>     not sure
>>     how easy it would be to automate the population of these fields,
>>     though
>>     it might be possible with some tweaks to frames.
>>
>>     On 07/21/2014 08:59 PM, Ondrej Zizka wrote:
>>     > So far, an ID and a reference to the Ruleset. The ruleset then
>>     would
>>     > probably have further info, like, version etc.
>>     >
>>     >
>>     https://github.com/OndraZizka/windup/blob/3940b146f811ab6e5fff1cb6c6def7179a33a467/reporting/api/src/main/java/org/jboss/windup/reporting/model/RuleModel.java
>>     >
>>     > Anyway, even if it was just an ID, OOP principles suggest to
>>     encapsulate
>>     > that ID to a type. My experience agrees. I may be wrong though.
>>     >
>>     > Ondra
>>     >
>>     >
>>     > On 22.7.2014 02:40, Jess Sightler wrote:
>>     >> I'm not opposed to this idea... except that I don't know what a
>>     >> "RuleModel" would actually contain, other than the ID.
>>     >>
>>     >> What are you proposing it to contain?
>>     >>
>>     >> On 07/21/2014 07:03 PM, Ondrej Zizka wrote:
>>     >>> We should have $subj:
>>     >>>
>>     >>> We need to refer to the rules in the report.
>>     >>> We agreed to store all information in the graph.
>>     >>> Current ID is not guaranteed to be the same over runs.
>>     >>> Current ID has no namespaces.
>>     >>>
>>     >>> my2c.
>>     >>> Ondra
>>     >>>
>>     >>> _______________________________________________
>>     >>> windup-dev mailing list
>>     >>> windup-dev at lists.jboss.org <mailto:windup-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>>     >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/windup-dev
>>     >> _______________________________________________
>>     >> windup-dev mailing list
>>     >> windup-dev at lists.jboss.org <mailto:windup-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>>     >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/windup-dev
>>     > _______________________________________________
>>     > windup-dev mailing list
>>     > windup-dev at lists.jboss.org <mailto:windup-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>>     > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/windup-dev
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     windup-dev mailing list
>>     windup-dev at lists.jboss.org <mailto:windup-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>>     https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/windup-dev
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Lincoln Baxter, III
>> http://ocpsoft.org
>> "Simpler is better."
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> windup-dev mailing list
>> windup-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/windup-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> windup-dev mailing list
> windup-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/windup-dev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/windup-dev/attachments/20140722/b5540e2f/attachment.html