Edson,
I think I've discovered the problem. In the file Rete.java, in the method
"assertObject", there is a check for shadow proxy like below:
Class cls = object.getClass();
if ( object instanceof ShadowProxy ) {
cls = cls.getSuperclass();
}
If the class being proxied was final, and your new logic chose an interface
of that class to build a proxy from, then the superclass is Object.class.
This leads to an incorrect selection of cachedNodes further down in the
method.
I've traced this through the debugger with my object types, and it does show
that a node for a SortieStatus is being given an object of type
LaunchRecoveryStatusShadowProxy, which is not compatible.
Perhaps theres a different way to determine the type of object such that
type LaunchRecoveryStatusShadowProxy will return LaunchRecoveryStatus rather
than Object.
Please take a look and let me know if I need to provide more info.
Thanks,
-Chris West
On 7/18/07, Edson Tirelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Chris,
What seems to be happening us that your SortieStatus interface has a
state attribute. Drools is trying to read this attribute value and cast it
to LaunchRecoveryStatusShadowProxy what is causing the problems...
Best way to solve would be to have the code so I can debug. Is it
possible to isolate it and send me?
[]s
Edson
2007/7/18, Chris West < [EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Edson,
>
> It is certainly possible to create a JDK proxy with only some of the
> interfaces that are present on the delegate object that you are proxying,
> but in my case, my proxies have all the interfaces of the underlying object.
>
>
> The top two lines of the call stack I sent shows the following:
>
> Exception in thread "main" java.lang.ClassCastException:
> ascc.status.FlightOpsStatusBoard$LaunchRecoveryStatusShadowProxy
> at
>
org.drools.base.ascc.status.AirPlanStatusBoard$SortieStatus$getState.getValue(Unknown
> Source)
>
> What's strange here is that the ClassCastException seems to be caused by
> casting an object of type SortieStatus to type
> LaunchRecoveryStatusShadowProxy, if I'm reading that right. The types
> SortieStatus and LaunchRecoveryStatus are both interfaces in my code, and
> they never appear on the same fact object (so no SortieStatus will ever be a
> LaunchRecoveryStatus and vice-versa). So I'm wondering why the cast is
> occuring, since it is not possible to work.
>
> The unfortunate part is I cannot see into the class where the cast is
> occurring, as it is a generated class created by drools.
>
> -Chris West
>
> On 7/18/07, Edson Tirelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Chris,
> >
> > For the solution to work, it is important that a superclass or
> > interface matches all the ObjectTypes in your rulebase that your final class
> > (proxy) matches... I guess that is the case with JDK proxies, isn't it?
> >
> > []s
> > Edson
> >
> > 2007/7/18, Chris West <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >:
> > >
> > > Edson,
> > >
> > > I downloaded and built the latest from the trunk of the repository.
> > > I applied this new build toward my test case, and it seemed to fix the
> > > problem. However, when I applied it to my real project, it still exhibits
> > > the problem. If I discover more information about the problem I'll let
you
> > > know.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Chris West
> > >
> > > On 7/17/07, Edson Tirelli < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Chris,
> > > >
> > > > I found and developed an intermediate solution that shall work
> > > > for your proxies.
> > > > If it is not possible to create a shadow fact for a class that
> > > > is asserted (because the class is final or whatever), the engine goes
up in
> > > > the class hierarchy, looking for a class or interface for which is
possible
> > > > to create the proxy, but that still matches all ObjectTypes available
in the
> > > > rule base matched by the original class. The analysis is a bit complex,
> > > > specially because new rules with new object types can be dynamically
added
> > > > to the rule base, but I believe the solution will work for JDK proxies
and
> > > > the most common proxy frameworks out there, that usually don't proxy
> > > > multiple unrelated interfaces at once.
> > > >
> > > > So, I ask you please to get latest snapshot from the repository
> > > > and try it out for your use case and report back to the list the
results,
> > > > since seems there are a few other people using similar things.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Edson
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 2007/7/17, Chris West < [EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > > >
> > > > > Is that still true if the equals() and hashcode() methods are
> > > > > only based on the identity fields of the object (which cannot change)?
> > > > >
> > > > > -Chris West
> > > > >
> > > > > On 7/17/07, Mark Proctor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > you only need to use modifyRetract if the object is inserted.
> > > > > > The reason for this is if you change field values on your facts we
will not
> > > > > > be able to remove them from our various internal hashmaps; thus the
need to
> > > > > > remove first prior to any changes, then make the changes and then
insert it
> > > > > > again. We can't allow users to just call update() as we have no
idea what
> > > > > > the old values where, thus we cannot find the objects in our
hashmaps.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mark
> > > > > > Chris West wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mark,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Using modifyRetract and modifyInsert seems to fix the problem
> > > > > > (at least in my test case I finally created). I'll try this on my
real
> > > > > > code.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My only concern here is that it puts the burden on the rule
> > > > > > author to know whether things are being shadowed or not. For
shadowing that
> > > > > > is explicitly turned off this is ok. But for implicit
non-shadowing based
> > > > > > on a class being final, this is not at all obvious to the rule
auther.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is there any way to have this hidden such that I can still
> > > > > > call "update" but have it use "modifyRetract" and "modifyInsert"
instead?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also, I'm curious why I have to call modifyRetract before I
> > > > > > start modifing the object, since the engine does not know about my
> > > > > > modifications anyway until I call update or modifyInsert? By the
way, I was
> > > > > > unable to use the block setter approach in the rule consequence due
to not
> > > > > > having set methods for modifying my objects.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > -Chris West
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 7/17/07, Mark Proctor <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If you do not have shadow facts you cannot use the update()
> > > > > > > method, it will leave the working memory corrupted. Instead you
must manage
> > > > > > > this yourself, before you change any values on the object you
must call
> > > > > > > modifyRetract() and after you hvae finished your changes ot hte
object call
> > > > > > > modifyInsert() - luckily if you are doing this in the consequence
you can
> > > > > > > use the MVEL modify keyword combined with the block setter and it
does this
> > > > > > > for you:
> > > > > > > modify ( person ) { age += 1, location = "london" }
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mark
> > > > > > > Chris West wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > With prior versions of JBoss Rules (3.0.5) I have been using
> > > > > > > JDK generated dynamic proxies as facts, and they have been
working fine.
> > > > > > > However, after upgrading to JBoss Rules 4.0.0MR3, I cannot
> > > > > > > seem to get the dynamic proxies to work as facts. It seems that
even though
> > > > > > > a rule fires that changes a field on the proxy, a second rule
that should
> > > > > > > not be activated after the update still fires.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > According to the JDK javadoc documentation, dynamic proxies
> > > > > > > are created as final. My assumption is that JBoss Rules is not
creating
> > > > > > > Shadow facts for these since they are final. After reading the
JIRA at
> > > > > > > http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/JBRULES-960, I now am
> > > > > > > questioning what the effect of not using shadow facts is on the
engine. The
> > > > > > > relevant part of that is:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "The problem is that SpringAOP is generating a proxy whose
> > > > > > > methods equals() and hashCode() are "final". As drools must
either override
> > > > > > > these methods in the shadow proxy or not shadow the fact at all,
I'm
> > > > > > > disabling shadow proxy generation for this use case.
> > > > > > > It is really important to note that if you are asserting
> > > > > > > SpringAOP proxies as facts into the working memory, you will not
be able to
> > > > > > > change any field value whose field is constrained in rules or you
may incur
> > > > > > > in a memory leak and non-deterministic behavior by the rules
engine.
> > > > > > > Unfortunately there is nothing we can do about, since when
SpringAOP makes
> > > > > > > the methods equals and hashcode final, we can't override them
anymore and as
> > > > > > > so, we can't shadow them."
> > > > > > > [ Show ยป <http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/JBRULES-960> ]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Edson
Tirelli<http://jira.jboss.com/jira/secure/ViewProfile.jspa?name=tirelli>
> > > > > > > [02/Jul/07 03:29 PM] The problem is that SpringAOP is
> > > > > > > generating a proxy whose methods equals() and hashCode() are
"final". As
> > > > > > > drools must either override these methods in the shadow proxy or
not shadow
> > > > > > > the fact at all, I'm disabling shadow proxy generation for this
use case. It
> > > > > > > is really important to note that if you are asserting SpringAOP
proxies as
> > > > > > > facts into the working memory, you will not be able to change any
field
> > > > > > > value whose field is constrained in rules or you may incur in a
memory leak
> > > > > > > and non-deterministic behavior by the rules engine. Unfortunately
there is
> > > > > > > nothing we can do about, since when SpringAOP makes the methods
equals and
> > > > > > > hashcode final, we can't override them anymore and as so, we
can't shadow
> > > > > > > them.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Although I'm not using SpringAOP, I believe my facts are not
> > > > > > > being shadowed.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Is it true that not using shadow facts may lead to
> > > > > > > non-deterministic behavior? Prior to shadow facts, the engine
seemed to
> > > > > > > handle it. Any chance of reverting back to the old style of truth
> > > > > > > maintenance in the case of not using shadow facts.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I apologize if I'm not on the right track here. My only
> > > > > > > test case for my problem is the entire application right now, so
I cannot
> > > > > > > offer it for discussion. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > ------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > 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
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > rules-users mailing list
> > > > > [email protected]
> > > > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Edson Tirelli
> > > > Software Engineer - JBoss Rules Core Developer
> > > > Office: +55 11 3529-6000
> > > > Mobile: +55 11 9287-5646
> > > > JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Edson Tirelli
> > Software Engineer - JBoss Rules Core Developer
> > Office: +55 11 3529-6000
> > Mobile: +55 11 9287-5646
> > JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
>
--
Edson Tirelli
Software Engineer - JBoss Rules Core Developer
Office: +55 11 3529-6000
Mobile: +55 11 9287-5646
JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
_______________________________________________
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
