haha, users already do the right thing :)
so no one ever needs to worry about a rule being 5 pages with deeply
nested and/or. Joking aside, I am quite shocked at how frequent users
do it. In fact, I would say it's like half the time, users do stupid
things like that.
then they bring in a consultant, who fixes the pile of mess.
peter
On 1/13/07, *Michael Neale* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
yes, well just cause you can, doesn't mean you should... ;)
I think its needed for the first order logic stuff like not,
exists, forall, *occasionally* (especially "not" I have often
wanted it), but should only be used as a light seasoning.
On 1/12/07, *Peter Lin* < [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
oh the horror of users nesting statements 4-10 deep.
I fear the poor user won't know what the heck they wrote the
next day :)
peter
On 1/12/07, *Edson Tirelli* < [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
Except for the need to change code target to 1.5, core
and compiler
are compiling fine now and all tests are green.
I just commited the new Builders. We now support any
level of
Conditional Elements nesting.
Forall is just syntax sugar that I will add now. Shall
be ok on monday.
So, I think the major requirement for M1 is the MVEL stuff.
[]s
Edson
Michael Neale wrote:
lol ! other then 3.0.x branch ?? ;)
Edson may know a branch to use, but in any case, Mark is
beavering
away on MVEL integration which will be awesome (I think
he wants MVEL
for an M1 release).
On 1/12/07, *Dirk Bergstrom* < [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>> wrote:
Michael Neale was heard to exclaim, On 01/02/07 05:28:
> Guys, I am ok to do a M1 release of 3.2 whenever
needed
Any news on this? I've been running (in production
now) on code I
pulled from
trunk a month or so ago, and it throws NPEs now and
again. I'd
really like to
get something a bit more stable. Today's trunk
"revision 8842"
doesn't build,
because the mvel code is Java 1.5.
I'm kinda stuck here, and I'm hoping that someone can
throw me a
bone. If M1
isn't coming soon, was there a particular revision
number that was
fairly stable
that I can use?
--
Dirk Bergstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>
_____________________________________________
Juniper Networks Inc., Computer Geek
Tel: 408.745.3182 Fax: 408.745.8905
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
<https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
--
Edson Tirelli
Software Engineer - JBoss Rules Core Developer
Office: +55 11 3124-6000
Mobile: +55 11 9218-4151
JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
<http://www.jboss.com>
_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
