Right... that means there are some limitations to how a "safe" class and package name is obtained from a rule name.
Something to watch for Drools 3: we can either a)place more validation constraints on the allowable rule names, or b)we can automatically "escape" rule names to make them safe (where possible). Option a) makes the restrictions more visible to the user, possibly more irritating at first Option b) means that it will Just Work (most of the time), BUT it means that it will be slightly less clear to track generated classes back to a rule (rule == generated class). My preference is option b. On 3/1/06, fanory <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Michael Neale <michael.neale <at> gmail.com> writes: > > > > > Can you try prefixing the rule name, and modifying it to be something > like: > > > > Something_73_r1 ? just to narrow down the problem a bit. > > > > Michael. > > > > > YES ! It works if i put st73.r1 as rulename ... > Thanks a lot ! > >
