ok I have added a ConsequenceExceptionHandler to RuleBaseConfiguration,
default just wraps and re-throws as a runtime exception. You can
override this to provide a custom consequence exception handler. But do
be aware that if you swallow the working memory integrity may be
invalid, if the error happened during a working memory action.
Mark
Anstis, Michael (M.) wrote:
For what it's worth I think this would be a good idea too.
Perhaps the default ASM wrapper around the RHS could use a try...catch
block and log any exceptions of a rules' activation in a (drools)
accessible log? Heck you could even allow certain accepted exceptions
to be defined as a property of the rule; and any other non-defined
exception types cause the session to become invalidated. If we're ever
to let "the business" define rules we need to accept they might make
mistakes that we're better off capturing and report back than
invalidate the whole session. Why should a whole session be
invalidated because a single rule activation failed anyway?
With kind regards,
Mike
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Yang Song
*Sent:* 24 August 2007 16:16
*To:* Rules Users List
*Subject:* Re: [rules-users] How to catch Exceptions when firing rules
Thanks a lot for the answer, Mark. But I don't think it makes sense.
Because in some scenarios, you cannot guarantee the consequence
part of rule is 100% correct -- there could be errors happening in
run-time which are hard to predict, especially when a complex
action or logic will be executed as the concequece.
There should at least be some mechanisms to tell whoever fires the
rule that there is something wrong during the rule firing process,
then and he can do something, e.g. create a new session. Also it
should enable the rule firer to catch these exceptions and do the
clean up work silently -- instead of leaving these things on the
stderr even cannot be seen in the logs. This will make the program
depending on the JBoss Rules to be more robust.
What do you think? If JBoss Rules already has the ability to do
this job, can you please let me know?
Thanks again,
Yang
On 8/24/07, *Mark Proctor* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
Once an exception is thrown on a conseuqence the current
session is considered invalid. You'll need to add the try
catch inside of the actual consequence.
Mark
Yang Song wrote:
Hi,
Anyone knows how to catch the exception when firing the rules?
I wrapped the session.fireAllRules() method using
try...catch, however it doesn't work: when someone wrote bad
code in the rule's action part, the Exception will be thrown
and printed to the stderr, and this will make the rule engine
stop working -- the try...catch outside doesn't help anything.
If the exception thrown from the rule's action part can be
caught externally, the system can be protected from
interrupting Exception.
try {
_log.debug("Firing rules in : " + getName());
session.fireAllRules();
} catch (Exception e) {
_log.info("Error when firing rules: ", e);
}
Thanks,
Yang
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[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
