Awesome.
I've found that java can still be quite readable as long as all the "verbs" can
be captured as object methodsmethods.
E.g. If the customer purchased "Coke" the customer is given new "Coke" Coupon.
In drools, I would write this as
<java:condition> customer.hasPurchased("Coke") </java:condition>
<java:consequence>
customer.isGiven(new Coupon("Coke");
</java:consequence>
As long as the method names are close to readable english, even non-experts
should be able to read them. What do people think ?
Regards,
Alan Ho
-----Original Message-----
From: Lionel Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 2:07 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [drools-user] Human readable rules
Alan,
>From what I've been lucky enough to see of the drools 3 stuff, the human
>readable language used for definition of rules is quite remarkable. Michael
>and the rest of the team have done some great work in that area.
Now the waiting.
Lionel
On 3/1/06, Michael Neale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Drools 3 will address this, definately. Timeframe is very soon for beta 1.
>
> On 3/1/06, Ho, Alan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I've been looking at the Semantic Module Framework, however I found
> > the Domain specific languages to be as complicated if not more than
> > the java stuff.
> >
> > Is there a way to express rules in a more "human-readable" format ?
> > Something like Subject Verb Object (e.g. drools is good) would work
> really
> > well for both conditions and consequences.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Alan Ho
> >
>
>
