Edson,
On 6 May 2011 01:14, Edson Tirelli <ed.tire...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Wolfgang,
>
> These are remaining bugs that must be fixed before final. Goal is to
> support free form expressions as long as they return a boolean value (for
> traditional constraints), or any value (for positional). Period.
>
(Well, as it's past 5.2.0M2...)
Given that any expression is valid, will there still be a distinction w.r.t.
efficiency, as there was with traditional constraints as opposed to eval()?
If yes, how can I tell whether a constraint expression is "good" or "bad"?
One might assume that all legacy forms will be handled as efficiently as
now, but it's possible that not only
field == ($var + 1)
but also
field == $var + 1
is efficient. Or, similarly,
field == $var
and (now) also
$var == field
But certainly not
field - 1 == $var
Or, at least, not until some later version ;-)
I repeat this quote (from 5.2.0 Drools Introduction and General User Guide) and
my question, what does it mean? Where is this "documented"? Is this somehow
related to the efficiency issue?
<quote>
As previously we had to document the restricted limitations of a field
constraint on the LHS compared to expressions used inside of an 'eval' or
used on the RHS.
</quote>
Wolfgang
>
> Edson
>
> 2011/5/5 Wolfgang Laun <wolfgang.l...@gmail.com>
>
>> In the 5.2.0 Drools Introduction and General User Guide, there's section
>> 2.1.3.1, Free Form expressions in Constraints (New Parser). It contains
>> several examples:
>> #1 Person( age * 2 > $anotherPersonsAge + 2 )
>> #2 Person( addresses["home"].streetName.startsWith( "High Park" ) )
>> #3 Person( isAdult() )
>>
>> #1 does not compile: Unable to build constraint as 'age * 2' is invalid :
>> [Rule name='exa1']
>>
>> #2 works - although I'd very much prefer not to be swamped with MVEL
>> extensions unless I ask for it.
>>
>> #3 does not compile: Unable to Analyse Expression isAdult():
>> [Error: no such identifier: isAdult]
>> [Near : {... isAdult() ....}]
>>
>> Neither rule name nor line number is provided.
>>
>> Would it please be possible to have a precise statement what one *can*write
>> as a constraint?
>>
>>
>> <quote>
>> As previously we had to document the restricted limitations of a field
>> constraint on the LHS compared to expressions used inside of an 'eval' or
>> used on the RHS.
>> </quote>
>>
>> I'm sorry, but I do not understand the meaning of this sentence. What does
>> it mean, please?
>>
>> Cheers
>> Wolfgang
>>
>>
>
_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
rules-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
