Great. thanks, -- yuri
On 6/16/07, Mark Proctor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We've have plans for pluggeable operators, just no time to implement them, maybe in the next release :) Mark Yuri de Wit wrote: > I am using JBoss Rules 3.0.6 and in many situations I was forced to > use a Java snipped predicates ( p.property -> ( fn.doSomething(p, a)) > which clutters the rules quite a bit ) to override or correct the > behaviour of some of the operators such as ==, !=, etc. It would be > nice if there was an easy way for me to override them by providing my > own implementation. I could then subclass the default one provided by > JBoss Rules and customized the ones I need. > > I know that this sugestiong would allow us to modify the semantic of > the rules language operators but it at least would provide a nice way > out of issues (such as using == between a Short and a Integer) we come > accross, could help debugging predicate evaluations (I guess I could > always add a breakpoint to a specific class from the rules engine - > which class?). > > On the same topic would it be possible to add new operators to the > language? > > thanks, > -yuri > _______________________________________________ > rules-users mailing list > rules-users@lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users > _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
_______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users