I can understand the "feeling anxious" bit but I think that you foster this feeling with a bad reason. What Davide and I posted are both declarations of a more complex fact evaluation - in my case it is necessarily written as if the API would provide such a rule declaration.
Don't be confused by the introduction of "if" in the "experimental" (Davide) syntax. This isn't any more non-declarative than the eval() of old. -W On 04/02/2013, Lance <[email protected]> wrote: > While I am following this discussion with great interest, I am also feeling > a > little anxious about what I see here. In the parent thread, I recall that > there was some talk of this functionality being contained in some kind of > adjunct, or "outside the rule engine", application. I get the impression > that what is now being discussed are changes to the rule-language that > would > allow this functionality to exist within the primary rule-engine. If I am > mistaken (which I hope I am), please let me know. > > My concern about this stems from the fact that I have spent the better part > of two years telling Java developers that this wasn't merely a different > language for them to learn, but is more of a shift in the way that they > think. The direction this discussion seems to be going (again, I hope I am > misreading it), is to back away from the declarative programming approach. > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/rules-users-How-to-track-constraint-truth-was-Non-short-circuit-ANDing-tp4022021p4022041.html > Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > _______________________________________________ > rules-users mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users > _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
