Unfortunately I'm finding that many people just cannot adjust to the
declarative and coupletely decoupled nature of a rule engine. The end
result is that Drools is used as a script execution framework.
Felipe Piccolini wrote:
Mark,
I could vote on this, I would vote no to the 'else'. The declarative
thing about rule engines is that: no procedural code. So if you
wanna do an 'else' condition you should re-think your rule and chack
if its well writen. Of course this is just MHO.
:)
Tuesday, April 11, 2006, 6:09:22 AM, you wrote:
I thought about adding 'else' but I couldn't decide on the best way to
implement it, as there are several possabilities. Also 'else' is not
considered declarative, so its a kinda of code smell. I'll llook into
this again in 3.1
Mark
Geoffrey Wiseman wrote:
On 4/10/06, Dmitry Goldenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What is the timeframe for 3.1? Else/else if are very important to what
we're trying to do.
I can see how I can to the following with the method described by
Geoffrey:
if (A) then B else if (C) then D endif
I also want to be able to do the following:
if (A) then B else D endif
I imagine that the rule would have to be written as a combo of
if (A) then B endif
if (!A) then D endif
so that the conditions are complimentary...
Indeed, yes, that's how you'd handle it.
If it does make it into 3.1, that's a good thing in terms of supporting the
way people think, talk, and work in other languages, but fundamentally, the
same capabilities are there now -- they just require more typing.
- Geoffrey
--
Geoffrey Wiseman
--------------------------
Felipe Piccolini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
