Bob, The format you propose is interesting. I believe that it is on flexible enough. Both the condition and the action should be expressions, otherwise the format is just some kind of dymanic preprocessor.
I believe that one of your goals was to have a dynamic rules engine. Forcing the rules actions to be references to methods in the root class binds the rule to the class very tightly. Just my two cents, Stuart Schmukler ---- On Thu, 6 Dec 2001, bob mcwhirter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > Okie dokie... > > Today, I think I'm going to werk on drools some, particularly > the Java Semantic Module. > > An adjunct to that would be a java-centric 'rules file' format. > > I'm thinking, though, that the action of a rule still should be > compiled code, at this point. Thus, I'm pondering a format > like this: > > <rule name="my rule"> > > <root-object name="thingy">com.myco.Thingy</root-object> > <root-object name="stuff">com.myco.Stuff</root-object> > > <declaration name="localdecl">java.lang.String</declaration> > > <condition> > name = thingy.getName() > </condition> > > <condition> > name = stuff.getName() > </condition> > > <action>com.myco.actions.MyAction</action> > > </rule> > > That is, using XML (because its cheap'n'easy to parse), you specify your > rule-set and rules, along with the root fact objects, local > declarations, > and conditions. The action is merely a reference to a class that > implements org.drools.spi.Action. > > Yea? Nay? > > -bob > > > > _______________________________________________ > drools-interest mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/drools-interest > > _______________________________________________ drools-interest mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/drools-interest
