Hi Edson, I think we are actually in agreement here as the ProblemTypes could easily be renamed to Severity instead..
I will have to think through how to expose the different message types that should be possible to override. Kind Regards Mikael On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 2:02 AM, Edson Tirelli <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Mikael, > > One idea would be to define severities for compilation messages... could > be 1..3, could be INFO, WARN, ERROR, etc. Each problem would have a default > priority and in an ideal world, the user could override this priority (like > you can do it in eclipse). So, for instance, a rule update could have a > default severity of INFO, but if the user does not use dynamic rule updates, > he would be able to define it as severity ERROR. > > ERRORS would always prevent execution, while warnings and infos would be > reported, but not prevent usage. > > This is my opinion would be a great step forward compared to what we > have today. > > What do you think? > > Thanks, > Edson > > 2011/8/24 Mikael Lönneberg <[email protected]> > >> Hi I'm currently working on an implementation of a new type of problem >> type namely Warnings, to solve the following JIRA's: >> JBRULES-3124, JBRULES-3063, JBRULES-2730 >> >> One of the JIRA's deal with the detection of duplicate rules and another >> with detection of duplicate functions. >> The question I have is in regards to this is, the current implementation >> allows for rules and functions to be overridden by functions and rules >> defined in different .drl files. >> In order to not break backwards compatibility and allow people to continue >> with this behavior we could just create a warning for these types of issues >> which is reported through a new getProblems(ProblemType... problemTypes) to >> get the problem types you are interested in, we will leave the legacy method >> getErrors() for backward compatibility. Another approach or complementary >> approach is to for certain types of these Warnings configure the compiler to >> be more or less strict, which in turn would switch the Type of these issues >> from Warning to Error. Is this something that's desirable or would it be >> sufficient to just report these issues as warnings and leave the >> responsibility to the user to halt execution if certain Warnings exists? >> >> Kind Regards >> >> Mikael (gwendo) >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rules-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev >> >> > > > -- > Edson Tirelli > JBoss Drools Core Development > JBoss by Red Hat @ www.jboss.com > > _______________________________________________ > rules-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev > >
_______________________________________________ rules-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
