You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Right now context is part of the result provided by the engine.process method. Such context holds a reference to all the rules that have been evaluated (only rules, not other closure types).
Does it make sense to hold reference to ALL closures evaluated? The original reason for not going this way was to prevent very granular closures to flood the execution log. We can prevent that by only adding the closures that have certain special mark in the definition ( having a description? having a name?)
In line with that we need to have a way for each rule (or closure) to reference their original definition (so things like, by example, description are not lost)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Right now
context
is part of the result provided by theengine.process
method. Such context holds a reference to all the rules that have been evaluated (only rules, not other closure types).Does it make sense to hold reference to ALL closures evaluated? The original reason for not going this way was to prevent very granular closures to flood the execution log. We can prevent that by only adding the closures that have certain special mark in the definition ( having a description? having a name?)
In line with that we need to have a way for each rule (or closure) to reference their original definition (so things like, by example, description are not lost)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: