> > fwiw, drools uses them. moving them to define would mean yet-another > jar for drools to include as a dep? > > drools synthesizes tag libraries for user-supplied non-tag resources, > to make them available within the drools rule-definition > jelly scripts. >
But is reuse in external libraries a strong enough reason to keep the classes in core? Right now the classes don't have any semantical relevance for the core. But maybe the concept should be leveraged and the classes more tightly integrated. The question is just how... -- knut
