I don't see the problem with using modules for rule namespacing. If you organize your rules by module, one file per module, you can use (defmodule MODULEA) at the beginning of each file and you don't have to use the module specifier MODULEA:: before each rule in that file. Seems pretty self-contained to me; I do this for an application I'm writing now, and I can swap in new files without re-coding anything else (syntactically -- logically, of course, my changes in one module may require changes in another).
V/R, Moon On 7/5/07, folderman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But actually I try doing in this way is mainly for packaging purpose; so that the rules could be grouped into separated rules files. For examples, there could be 3 files 1) one rule file for the dispatcher rules and core logic rules 2) specific logic rules set A (ModuleA) 3) specific logic rules set B (ModuleB) so that file 2 & 3 could be replaced rather easily. However, if I need to write the module names with the rules, it seems I need more efforts in switching the rule files. Does anyone have similar experience? Please share with me, Thx!
