Re: [rules-users] functions inside fact type declaration?

Hehe, ok, you convinced me Greg! ;) https://jira.jboss.org/browse/JBRULES-2652 Edson 2010/8/9 Greg Barton > +1 on the full constructor. > > GreG > > On Aug 9, 2010, at 3:58 PM, Edson Tirelli wrote: > > I thought about adding that, but I feel like we would just be > reimplementing

Re: [rules-users] functions inside fact type declaration?

+1 on the full constructor. GreG On Aug 9, 2010, at 3:58 PM, Edson Tirelli wrote: I thought about adding that, but I feel like we would just be reimplementing java, in this case. So, if you need anything else other than simple java beans, you should implement it as a java class. Rega

Re: [rules-users] functions inside fact type declaration?

I thought about adding that, but I feel like we would just be reimplementing java, in this case. So, if you need anything else other than simple java beans, you should implement it as a java class. Regarding the constructor, I might still add a constructor that receives all fields as param

[rules-users] functions inside fact type declaration?

Hi, is it possible to define a function/constructor inside a fact type declaration? If yes, how can it be done? Thank you :) Tina ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users