yeah there is some logic to that. Certainly easier to implement ;)
I guess thinking of business rules - nulls are evil things. Even in a database, they are evil. Many an important report is incorrect cause it is built on a database that allows null values, and people don't understand the ramifications of the SQL statements used. Nulls in your fact model: just say no ! of course... back in the real world... Some other thoughts: Foo(bar < 3) makes no sense if bar is null, so it should be false always in my opinion. However, Foo(bar != 3) is not so clear for null behaviour. On 3/15/07, Steven Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I agree with SQL. If you also want to catch null you could do Foo(field > 3 | == null) cheers Steve On 3/15/07, Michael Neale < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/JBRULES-627 > > OK, this much is clear: > > Foo(field == null) can be true if field is null. > > but, what about Foo(field > 3), and field is null? should that be false? > what about Foo(field != 3) - should that be true? > > in SQL, null will always result in a false condition, unless you > explicitly use null. > > Thoughts? > > Michael. > > _______________________________________________ > rules-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev > > -- Steven Williams Supervising Consultant Object Consulting Office: 8615 4500 Mob: 0439 898 668 Fax: 8615 4501 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.objectconsulting.com.au consulting | development | training | support our experience makes the difference _______________________________________________ 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
