Re: [rules-dev] Guvnor split-up

I've updated the documentto reflect our discussions. I will need 2 new droolsjbpm repositories: drools-iwb and kie-iwb-shared; Geoffrey, Mark can you please create these (if you are in agreement)? I have notiona

Re: [rules-dev] Guvnor split-up

make sense w.r.t. reusability and easy to use. Regards, Nasir --- Wolfgang Laun schrieb am Do, 11.4.2013: Von: Wolfgang Laun Betreff: Re: [rules-dev] Guvnor split-up An: "Rules Dev List" Datum: Donnerstag, 11. April, 2013 00:23 Uhr @Nasir, (1) Even being very new, you might have

Re: [rules-dev] Guvnor split-up

@Nasir, (1) Even being very new, you might have noted that this rule based system is called "Drools", not "drool". (2) You have used the list for Drools developers. Use the rules Users list: rules-us...@lists.jboss.org. (3) You have hijacked a thread discussing something not related to your problem

Re: [rules-dev] Guvnor split-up

I was going to use the following Group/Artifact IDs: org.drools:drools-iwb for Drools editors org.kie:guvnor for generic Guvnor. org.kie:kie-iwb-shared for the module for things that both Drools and jBPM editors need. I'd plan on kie-ide becoming kie-iwb. On 10 Apr 2013 19:19, "Mark Proctor" w

Re: [rules-dev] Guvnor split-up

Dear All, I am new to use drool. Since I have a large number of packages, is there any Way that I Upload facts on One Place (e.g. Global area) and Share it in all packages. I shall be thankful for your help. Best Regards, Nasir Sent from my iPad On 10.04.2013, at 20:24, Alexandre Porcelli w

Re: [rules-dev] Guvnor split-up

+1 for IWB On Apr 10, 2013, at 3:19 PM, Mark Proctor wrote: > Did we decided on an extension, instead of IDE? > > Mark > On 10 Apr 2013, at 17:11, Michael Anstis wrote: > >> I will be starting the split tomorrow. >> >> >> >> On 2 April 2013 11:23, Mark Proctor wrote: >> studio might be a

Re: [rules-dev] Guvnor split-up

Did we decided on an extension, instead of IDE? Mark On 10 Apr 2013, at 17:11, Michael Anstis wrote: > I will be starting the split tomorrow. > > > > On 2 April 2013 11:23, Mark Proctor wrote: > studio might be a problem, like suite and platform, it might overlap with > something they prefe

Re: [rules-dev] Guvnor split-up

I will be starting the split tomorrow. On 2 April 2013 11:23, Mark Proctor wrote: > studio might be a problem, like suite and platform, it might overlap with > something they prefer in the RHT product names. > > We could have "workbench" instead of "work". That would still be under > IWE. Inte

Re: [rules-dev] Guvnor split-up

studio might be a problem, like suite and platform, it might overlap with something they prefer in the RHT product names. We could have "workbench" instead of "work". That would still be under IWE. Integrated Workbench Environment. Or we could drop the Enviornement and have IWB - Integrated Wor

Re: [rules-dev] Guvnor split-up

Nobody ever proposed a "software loom". Hits too close to home, eh? -W On 02/04/2013, Michael Anstis wrote: > LOL. > > Why re-invent the wheel indeed... unless Mark wants better separation of > terms for "guvnor" and "uberfire" (that is our workbench framework)... > Mark? > > "Bench" is good for

Re: [rules-dev] Guvnor split-up

LOL. Why re-invent the wheel indeed... unless Mark wants better separation of terms for "guvnor" and "uberfire" (that is our workbench framework)... Mark? "Bench" is good for me (in fact, I'm pretty comfortable with anything.. as much I care.. I just don't want to have to do the renaming twice).

Re: [rules-dev] Guvnor split-up

On 02/04/2013, Michael Anstis wrote: > I'm easy with "W" instead of "D". How about "Integrated Work Studio" > instead of "Environment"? > Seems to me that people have forgotten about the good old work bench. Too nutsy-and-boltsy for the brighter future? -W ___

Re: [rules-dev] Guvnor split-up

I'm easy with "W" instead of "D". How about "Integrated Work Studio" instead of "Environment"? Group IDs proposed to be: org.drools.iws (all things drools specific) and org.kie.guvnor (generic management/workflow stuff)... kie-ide would become kie-iws; and presumably jBPM modules should ideally a

Re: [rules-dev] Guvnor split-up

IWE vs IDE. The new web framework can be a console, a workbench, an IDE, or "work" area. We can't use the words suite or platform - as that confuses with RHT product names. So we were thinking of just using KIE IDE, as a generic work to refer to all of them - but i think "development" in the I

Re: [rules-dev] Guvnor split-up

Yep, that looks good. Toni On Mar 27, 2013, at 3:33 PM, Michael Anstis wrote: > I've put together this: > https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1zovHiCJu0TnlKDuSq4xvRcuhThiR7G3ZdOWobooerdc/edit > showing my perceptions. > > Please take a few minutes to look and feedback... I'll be checking GAVs

Re: [rules-dev] Guvnor split-up

I've put together this: https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1zovHiCJu0TnlKDuSq4xvRcuhThiR7G3ZdOWobooerdc/editshowing my perceptions. Please take a few minutes to look and feedback... I'll be checking GAVs (and the split) with Mark before making the changes... On 26 March 2013 11:35, Toni Rikkola

Re: [rules-dev] Guvnor split-up

I propose that we add one more layer between drools-ide and guvnor. Name could be guvnor-kie-ide or kie-ide-guvnor. 1. Generic Guvnor 2. Kie-family modules shared between layer #3 3. Drools (drools-ide) / jBPM / OptaPlanner For example the build services we have in guvnor-project will most likel

[rules-dev] Guvnor split-up

Hi, The time to split Guvnor into "Guvnor" (common asset management/generic project framework) and "Drools IDE" (Editors for Drools assets) has arrived. This is a list of the current Guvnor modules and a proposal as to the split. Please feedback any comments - I'd like to split next week (and per