You should add the drools-core library as a required dependency.
Fernando Meyer http://fmeyer.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP: 0xD804DDFB
On Jul 17, 2007, at 9:55 AM, Jesse Stockall wrote:
Tomcat 5.5
Java 1.5
jbossrules-4.0.0.12865MR3
I have an instance of Drools running inside a webapp deployed
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
Ronald,
I use Ant task too but in my usecase I'd like to add additional property to
objects on a fly (actually collection of parents) so I can check it on a LHS.
Currently I use eval on external objects (identity map with child and
associated parents). I don't know yet if this approach viable a
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 chan
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
Edson,
The problem is for example: I have a classes that I use with
persistance broker (OJB)
class Parent {
private Child child;
public Child getChild() {
OJBBeanManager.retrieveReferenceIfNull(this,"child");
return child;
}
}
Why is it that the "digest" comes almost as frequently as individual emails?
I've received eight separate digest emails in the last five hours, and I can
only assume I'll get another ten or so by the end of the day? I subscribe
because I like to keep up on what's going on with JBoss Rules, but
Not quite.
It's really the opposite. There is a change I want the engine to see now,
but my own code has not propagated the real change back around to the rule
engine just yet. If I don't use my own proxy to hold the new value, then
other rules will fire that I don't want. If I use my proxy, I
Chris,
I'm not sure I understood your scenario bellow, but it does seem exactly
what shadow facts do: a lazy proxy.
In other words, lets say you have an object X. You assert X into working
memory and the engine creates a shadow proxy for it. Then, you can mess with
it as much as you want fr
Oleg,
Are you generating the Castor classes on the fly? I am successfully using
Castor generated classes within the rules engine without any proxy classes.
My process is that I use the Castor ant task to generate objects based upon
my schema. I then develop my rules against the Castor generated
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
Chris,
I'll try to dig it a little too. My problem is that I need to proxy concrete
classes as they are generated from XSD using Castor. If I find workaround I'll
let you know.
Oleg.
Chris West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Oleg,
So far I have not been successful. I've just posted my thoughts t
Thank you for your response to this issue.
My use case for using proxies is this:
The facts are not modifiable directly (no setter methods) or synchronously.
Modifications to facts occur by calling another method which modifies the
fact and notifies the rules engine of the modification asynchron
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 modifyInser
Chris,
Unfortunately, that is true. Shadow facts exist to ensure the rules
engine integrity. At this point, there is no alternative to shadow facts,
because the solution we used in 3.x had too many drawbacks and did not
scaled for complex rules.
We are trying to come up with an alternative
Sergey,
ShadowProxy classes are not supposed to be visible outside the engine.
What problem are you facing?
[]s
Edson
2007/7/17, Manukyan, Sergey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Folks,
I am using MR3, my classes are being shadowed and I have something like
"ShadowProxy" … I need to avoid tha
Oleg,
So far I have not been successful. I've just posted my thoughts to this
list (under the subject "The effect of not using shadow facts"). Concerning
the class names, my rules only match on an interface type implemented by the
proxies, so the actual class type of the instance does not matte
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 c
Folks,
I am using MR3, my classes are being shadowed and I have something like
"ShadowProxy" ... I need to avoid that as my logic depends
on class name, so I just need to disable shadowing right?
How can I do that?
Thanks,
-Sergey
**
** LEGAL DISCLAIMER **
Sergey
This was indeed a bug that I already solved in MR4. If you get latest
successful build you shall not have the problem:
http://cruisecontrol.jboss.com/cc/artifacts/jboss-rules
Thanks,
Edson
2007/7/17, Manukyan, Sergey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Ok, just before I submit to JIRA, I
Kris,
I set the compiler compliance to 5.0, but the generated classes to 1.4. The
only catch is that I also have to set the Source compatibility to 1.4 as
well. Hence the error still occurs.
Ron
On 7/16/07, Kris Verlaenen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ronald,
Could you try not setting the com
Kris,
I think I just realized that JBoss rules IDE is NOT compatible with Eclipse
Europa and hence the strange behavior. That would explain some of this.
On 7/17/07, Ronald R. DiFrango <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Kris,
I set the compiler compliance to 5.0, but the generated classes to 1.4.
Th
Ok, just before I submit to JIRA, I want to make sure I have a "case".
So I am using MR3.
The exception is thrown when "for" cycle is used with local variable
declared inside:
rule ""
when
...
then
for(int i = 1;;){break;}
end
it worked fine wh
Tomcat 5.5
Java 1.5
jbossrules-4.0.0.12865MR3
I have an instance of Drools running inside a webapp deployed on Tomcat.
The rules have been compiled ahead of time and are loaded in with:
InputStream is = PolicyRuntime.class.getResourceAsStream(name);
DroolsObjectInputStream in = new DroolsObjectIn
we currently recommend that you figure out the specific rules for that
else part, and write them seperately.
Mark
Natraj Gudla wrote:
When writing a rule, how do i deal with a scenario to do an action
when a condition is not true. If i have a business need like
IF COND1 is true
DO Action1
When writing a rule, how do i deal with a scenario to do an action when a
condition is not true. If i have a business need like
IF COND1 is true
DO Action1
ELSE
DO Action 2
I feel with drools we only check for the condition in when part and incase
it fails, we dont have a way to call another
26 matches
Mail list logo
