You can't be much worse off if you add "package foo" to the template. Or is there a problem with this obvious workaround? -W
On 27 August 2010 18:25, drdaveg <[email protected]> wrote: > > I am trying to incorporate several templates in a single output drl file. > According to the 5.0.1 docs "package" is optional: > > Example 5.3. Rule template file: templates > template header > parameter-name-1 > ... > parameter-name-n > package ... # optional > > However, it seems that the drools parser uses "package" as a keyword to > identify when it has passed header information. Not having a "package" > specifier in either 5.0.1 or 5.1.1 yields: > > java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: value rule "rules for reject non-header > @{id}" is not a valid column definition > at > org.drools.template.parser.ColumnFactory.getColumn(ColumnFactory.java:34) > > which cannot be overcome by tricks like > > // package a.b.c > or > # package a.b.c > > Are other people experiencing this? Is there a fix planned for the parser? > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://drools-java-rules-engine.46999.n3.nabble.com/Template-bug-on-package-keyword-tp1374638p1374638.html > Sent from the Drools - User 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
