[rules-users] Parse bug in predicate constraints?

[Edson Tirelli]

   Vlad,

   Yes, we did that in trunk. For performance reasons, we now gracefully 
handle primitive types. Even if you use Java5, we avoid autoboxing.
   Please, see my answer to Justine about it.

   []s
   Edson

Olenin, Vladimir (MOH) wrote:

> Also, since everything in rules needs to be an Object, is there any 
> plan to make the operators deal with said Objects? That is, so I do 
> not always have to de-reference with my eval or predicate objects with 
> intValue() or floatValue() or whatever? 
>
> Not a DROOLS expert, but from what I understand this is already 
> possible now as long as you are using Java 1.5 (which has 
> autoboxing/autounboxing as part of the language spec).
>
>  
>
> Vlad
>
>  
>
>  
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* rules-users-bounces at lists.jboss.org 
> [mailto:rules-users-bounces at lists.jboss.org] *On Behalf Of *Justine Hlista
> *Sent:* 08 February 2007 15:12
> *To:* rules-users at lists.jboss.org
> *Subject:* [rules-users] Parse bug in predicate constraints?
>
>  
>
> Should predicate constraints be sensitive to whitespace?? I have the 
> following rule with a predicate constraint:
> rule "test"
>     when
>         valObj : MyValuesObject(a:aVal, b:bVal, c:cVal -> 
> ((a.intValue() <  (1/780) * (b.intValue() + c.intValue()) && 
> (b.intValue() + c.intValue()) > 500000)
>     then
>         System.out.println("Alert condition met on obj:" + valObj);
> end
>
> Inserting whitespace into the predicate results in the following 
> exception:
>
> org.drools.rule.InvalidRulePackage: unknown:155:85 mismatched token: 
> [@1723,5226:5227='\r\n',<4>,155:85]; expecting type ')'
> unknown:156:28 mismatched token: [@1752,5256:5256='(',<23>,156:28]; 
> expecting type ')'
>
> If instead I use an eval on the LHS, I can insert whitespace without 
> an exception.
>
> In addition, I would like to know if there are any plans to simplify 
> the syntax for similar types of rules, as the above is extremely 
> unwieldy for the non-expert.
> For instance, I would vastly prefer to write the following:
>
> rule "test"
>     when
>        valObj : MyValuesObject(a:aVal, b:bVal, c:cVal)
>        (a < (1/780)*(b+c))
>        ((b + c) > 500000)
>     then
>         System.out.println("Alert condition met on obj:" + valObj);
> end
>
>
> Also, since everything in rules needs to be an Object, is there any 
> plan to make the operators deal with said Objects? That is, so I do 
> not always have to de-reference with my eval or predicate objects with 
> intValue() or floatValue() or whatever? 
>
> In our application, the user (i.e. not a drools or java expert) will 
> be writing the rules. The current syntax requirements for encoding the 
> above simple rule makes me very nervous about our users ever being 
> able to use the rules effectively.
>
> Thanks,
> Justine
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>rules-users mailing list
>rules-users at lists.jboss.org
>https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>  
>


-- 
 Edson Tirelli
 Software Engineer - JBoss Rules Core Developer
 Office: +55 11 3124-6000
 Mobile: +55 11 9218-4151
 JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com