> I finally had some time to look at this in detail. While I can't say I
> understand it completely yet I do understand enough to see that it looks
> pretty good so far.
>
> I was going to do the UML class diagram's for it; but you mentioned that
> you might abandon the current implementation for JEOPS.
>
> Let me know which way you are headed, I don't want to document something
> that isn't going to be used
I'm not 100% certain at this point.
Chances are, I'll probably re-start with JEOPS as the base, and re-write
1/2 of it. Then, I'll rewrite the other 1/2, ending in a new product.
The conflict I'm having is that if The Day Job wants a rules engine,
and I write one for them, it's closed source, which is Bad.
If I start with JEOPS, which is LGPLd, then the thing I write will
also be LGPLd. Which means its open-source, of course. And as
licenses go, LGPL for a library is acceptable to me.
Basically, I can't directly work on drools under the BSD license
without creating a conflict-of-interest with the Day Job at this
point.
And JEOPS has done some nice stuff, honestly. No point in re-inventing
the wheel. Though, getting interpreted rules as opposed to compiled
rules is definitely at the top of my agenda. As is swapping ArrayList
for the Vectors, etc.
I have a feeling that at least the public API will morph to being
basically what you see in drools currently.
So, I wouldn't spend too much effort documenting the current code-base.
btw, you using TogetherJ or similar to document into UML? TogetherJ
rocks my world.
-bob
_______________________________________________
drools-interest mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/drools-interest
