Drools always looks for getters/setters, never for the actual internal attribute.
As long as you have an instance of a given interface and your rules are written against the interface you should be fine in Drools 5. Drools 4 used shadow facts, so, there would be more considerations to make on drools 4. []s Edson 2009/3/19 Premkumar Stephen <[email protected]> > Hello Folks, > I have been looking at options of using ruby objects as fact objects in > Drool's working memory. > > One obvious way is using services. > > Another path that I have been researching about is to use Spring as > outlined here http://www.jroller.com/habuma/entry/spring_meet_ruby > > Now, in this example, if the Lime ruby object were like a POJO, (contains > fields), will I be able to insert this object into the workingMemory? My > Lime interface would have getters and setters. Will the engine look for the > fields themselves in an object or can it work with just getters and setters > ( as would be declared in the Lime.java interface and defined in the Lime.rb > ruby class? > > Are there any drawbacks in doing it this way? > > Any comments/pointers will be appreciated. > > Thanks!! > > _______________________________________________ > rules-users mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users > > -- Edson Tirelli JBoss Drools Core Development JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
_______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
