Jurgen, want to take this to the dev list? As I know what you are trying to do, we should discuss there and come up with a design (without filling the inbox of the user list subscribers !).
Cheers, Michael. On 4/14/06, Mark Proctor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Assert is just replaced with workingMemory.assertOjbect ( object ) > anyway. It's just a bit of regexp we apply to make things easier for > users. > > BTW this is what mandarax has to say about JSR94: > A: Mandarax does not (yet) support JSR-94 > <http://www.jcp.org/jsr/detail/094.jsp>. The reason is that this > proposal is so general that it is almost useless. We are monitoring the > JSR-94 efforts, and perhaps add support later. > > We support JSR94, but my feelings are just the same - just say NO! :) > > Mark > > Juergen wrote: > > Questions on assert in RHS: > > > > 1) is it the same to call "special" assert() in RHS vs. indirectly > > calling JSR 94 Rule session method addObject() (or > > WorkingMemory.assert()) in RHS? would the latter way of asserting > > interfere with the active rule execution? > > > > rule "A" > > when ... > > then > > assert(new String("A")) > > someMethodCallsThisEnginesWorkingMemoryAssert(new String("B")) > > someMethodCallsThisEnginesJSR94SessionAddObject(new String("C")) > > end > > > > > > 2) what other special names/objects/methods do exist, that can be used > > in a RHS code block (like special drools object in drools 2.5)? > > Haven't found much on that in current docu. > > > > My questions relate to the idea to wrapping assert with code to check > > for equality. > > > > Michael Neale wrote: > >> if there is enough demand for it, we may be able to make it some > working > >> memory wide configuration option - certainly. Submit a JIRA request > >> if you > >> like, may come in handy (certainly will for you). But not as the > >> default, as > >> not everyone implements equals() correctly ! > >> > >> On 4/11/06, Juergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >>> Quick'n dirty I could make drools 3 do it the way I would prefer - in > >>> the context of my current problem and datastructures involved - by > >>> modifying: > >>> > >>> org.drools.reteoo.WorkingMemoryImpl, line 95f (rev. 3509): > >>> replace: > >>> /** Object-to-handle mapping. */ > >>> private Map identityMap > >>> = new IdentityMap(); > >>> > >>> by: > >>> /** Object-to-handle mapping. */ > >>> private Map identityMap > >>> = new java.util.HashMap(); > >>> > >>> (not considering side effects, identityMap type cast problems, ...) > >>> > >>> Then org.drools.reteoo.WorkingMemoryImpl, assertObject (line 422, rev. > >>> 3509): > >>> FactHandleImpl handle = (FactHandleImpl) this.identityMap.get( > >>> object ); > >>> > >>> would return first "A"s handle when the second "A" is asserted, > >>> refering > >>> to the example in my former posting. > >>> > >>> I expected some way to customize the behaviour of the working memory, > >>> basically by choosing between either of the Maps. > >>> > >>> But as mentioned, such behaviour might not be desirable by others > (they > >>> probably want "A" being asserted twice and handled as two different > >>> objects) and even if not customizable in drools itself, it can most > >>> likely be done by wrapping assertObject and managing your own > >>> object-to-handle map plus taking care not to use assert directly in > >>> RHS. > >>> > >>> I first wrongly thought logical assertions had something to do with > >>> this, but I guess that relates more to the 'logical' conditional > >>> element > >>> in jess and logical dependencies among facts. > >>> > >>> Michael Neale wrote: > >>> > >>>> what is your expectations on how it should work? (everyone has > >>>> different > >>>> ideas it seems !) > >>>> > >>>> On 4/10/06, Juergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> I mean > >>>>> > >>>>> workingMemory.assertObject(new String("A")); > >>>>> workingMemory.assertObject(new String("A")); > >>>>> > >>>>> would currently assert both strings into working memory, whereas > >>>>> if it > >>>>> would check not for identityHashCode but with equals, the second > >>>>> assert > >>>>> would have no effect. > >>>>> > >>>>> When during experimentation with rule engines I switched from jess > >>>>> (where it is done with equals I think) to drools 2 I first > >>>>> experienced > >>>>> problems due to this differences (also did not find much in both > >>>>> engines > >>>>> docu), leading to my question if I could customize drools behaviour. > >>>>> > >>>>> As one can always write a wrapper for drools assertObject to make > >>>>> such > >>>>> checks, and lots of other users probably dont need, my request is > not > >>>>> important. > >>>>> > >>>>> Juergen > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Michael Neale wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> so you mean > >>>>>> p1 : Person() > >>>>>> p2 : Person() > >>>>>> eval ( p1.equals(p2) ) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> (but presumably a shorthand form?) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 4/8/06, Mark Proctor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> We hadn't planned it, not promising anything - but I'll see how > >>> > >>> things > >>> > >>>>>>> pan out, may be we will get time. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Mark > >>>>>>> Juergen wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> ad. Can object equality for assertion be customized? > >>>>>>>> Drools 3 still seems to use IdentityMap with > >>>>>>>> System.identityHashCode > >>> > >>> (). > >>> > >>>>>>>> Is it planned to be customizeable e.g. with equals() in 3.0? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Michael Neale wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Short answer, not easily with Drools 2. But yes, with Drools 3. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On 3/22/06, Juergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I recently looked into drools after experimenting with JESS > >>>>>>>>>> and got > >>> > >>> a > >>> > >>>>>>>>>> few questions I could not look up in the drools documentation: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> - Exists a condition to test for non-existence of a matching > >>>>>>>>>> object/fact? > >>>>>>>>>> -- If yes, how to use it for own domain specific language > >>> > >>> conditions > >>> > >>>>>>>>>> - How is sharing of conditions/nodes between productions > >>> > >>> implemented > >>> > >>>>>>> in > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> drools, one of the main benefits of the rete algorithm? > >>>>>>>>>> -- How is the equality of conditions defined for java smf? via > >>>>> > >>>>> textual > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> equality of the condition's java code? > >>>>>>>>>> -- How can equality of conditions for sharing be defined for > >>>>>>>>>> domain > >>>>>>>>>> specific language conditions? > >>>>>>>>>> e.g. Conway's game of life (slightly modified dsl) > >>>>>>>>>> <rule name="kill the overcrowded"> > >>>>>>>>>> <conway:cellIsAlive cellName="cell"/> > >>>>>>>>>> <conway:cellIsOverCrowded cellName="cell"/> > >>>>>>>>>> <conway:killCell cellName="cell"/> > >>>>>>>>>> </rule> > >>>>>>>>>> <rule name="kill the lonely"> > >>>>>>>>>> <conway:cellIsAlive cellName="cell"/> > >>>>>>>>>> <conway:cellIsLonely cellName="cell"/> > >>>>>>>>>> <conway:killCell cellName="cell"/> > >>>>>>>>>> </rule> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> The conway:cellIsAlive condition could be shared between > >>>>>>>>>> these two > >>>>>>>>>> productions. Would it? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> - When will the properties map be supported in drools > >>> > >>> implementation > >>> > >>>>>>> of > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> JSR 94 javax.rules API? > >>>>>>>>>> -- e.g. to be able to set conflict resolver of a rule base and > >>> > >>> other > >>> > >>>>>>>>>> settings that can be set via drools native API > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> - Can object equality for assertion be customized? > >>>>>>>>>> -- Currently, org.drools.util.IdentityMap > >>>>>>>>>> (org.drools.reteoo.WorkingMemoryImpl) makes use of > >>>>>>>>>> System.identityHashCode(). There seems to be no way to > customize > >>>>> > >>>>> that, > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> e.g. make drools use equals() instead, neither via native nor > >>>>>>>>>> JSR > >>> > >>> 94 > >>> > >>>>>>>>>> API. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> My apologies if some questions have already been answered in > >>>>>>>>>> other > >>>>>>>>>> postings, I made no thorough search in this newsgroup yet. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Thanks a lot, Juergen > > > > > > > > >
