I've collected a few things I've been moaning about... They are intended to make DRL programming more convenient, given the current set of the Engine's capabilities, i.e., enhance Drools' usability!
AFAIK, none of these proposals would break backward compatibility. Cheers Wolfgang On 27/03/2012, Mark Proctor <mproc...@codehaus.org> wrote: > I've put up a wiki page to collect thoughts on ideas that would involve > breaking backwards compatability in Drools. It's aimed to produce ideas > for Drools 6.0. > > No suggestion is too silly, think of it as a brainstorming area for > alternative syntaxes and behaviours to what we have now, so knock > yourself out. > https://community.jboss.org/wiki/BreakingChangesSuggestions > > Mark > _______________________________________________ > rules-dev mailing list > rules-dev@lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev > _______________________________________________ rules-dev mailing list rules-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
