Chris,
I'm thinking about using dynamic proxies in my rules too. I'll be glad to hear
about your success with them. I think that there could be problem with matching
of facts as they won't be of original class but of Proxy$... one. CGLIB
approach doesn't have such problem as it just modifies original classes'
bytecode. I could be wrong, anyway.
Oleg.
Mark Proctor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: That is not the only thing that
determines shadowing. If you look the shadowing is actually determined here:
if ( !ruleBase.getConfiguration().isShadowProxy() || cls == null
|| !ruleBase.getConfiguration().isShadowed( cls.getName() ) ) {
return;
}
By default shadowing is turned on for all (none final) bjects, except stuff in
the org.drools namespace, you have to set exclusion lists.too. So if your
package has a null namespace it will still attempt to shadow it.
Mark
Chris West wrote: OK, I just solved my own problem. My proxy had no package,
since the jdk based proxy is only in a package if it has at least 1 non public
interface, according to the javadoc.
The suspect code beginning on line 333 is:
String pkgName = cls.getPackage().getName();
if ( "org.drools.reteoo".equals( pkgName ) ||
"org.drools.base".equals( pkgName ) ) {
// We don't shadow internal classes
this.shadowEnabled = false;
return;
}
The getPackage() method returns null. In this case, it would be good if JBoss
Rules handled the null and went on to shadow the object anyway, since it is
obviously not in the org.drools packages.
Now I'll continue trying to build a test case for my original problem.
Shall I enter a JIRA for this issue?
Thanks,
-Chris West
On 7/12/07, Chris West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hello,
I'm trying to use objects that are generated as dynamic proxies (through the
java.lang.reflect.Proxy class) as facts in JBoss Rules 4.0 MR3. My project was
using CGLib to generate proxies, and they were working just fine in 3.0.6.
However, when I tried 4.0, the CGLib based proxies seemed to have a final
method that kept the proxies from being proxied as shadow facts. So I rewrote
my code to try to use JDK based proxies, and version 4.0 MR3 accepts them and
apparently creates shadow facts, but now my rules don't fire correctly.
So, in an attempt to create a simple program to illustrate the problem, I ran
into a different problem. The attached eclipse project illustrates this
problem.
The error is:
java.lang.NullPointerException
at org.drools.reteoo.Rete$ObjectTypeConf.<init>(Rete.java:333)
at org.drools.reteoo.Rete.assertObject(Rete.java:152)
at org.drools.reteoo.ReteooRuleBase.assertObject(ReteooRuleBase.java:190)
at
org.drools.reteoo.ReteooWorkingMemory.doInsert(ReteooWorkingMemory.java:70)
at
org.drools.common.AbstractWorkingMemory.insert(AbstractWorkingMemory.java:772)
at org.drools.common.AbstractWorkingMemory.insert
(AbstractWorkingMemory.java:584)
at com.sample.DroolsTest.main(DroolsTest.java:42)
Has anyone successfully used JDK based dynamic proxies as facts?
Thanks,
-Chris West
---------------------------------
_______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
---------------------------------
Вы уже с Yahoo!?
Испытайте обновленную и улучшенную Yahoo! Почту!_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
