[rules-users] talking about new features...

[Anstis, Michael (M.)]

Hi,
 
3.0.5 documentation states:- 
 
You can access fields either by using the bean-name convention (so
"getType" can be accessed as "type"). For example, refering to our
Cheese class, the following : Cheese(type == ...) uses the getType()
method on the a cheese instance. You can also access non getter methods,
like "toString()" on the Object for instance (in which case, you do
Cheese(toString == ..) - you use the full name of the method with
correct capitalisation, but not brackets).
 
You're example Map(name == 'myName') only checked for the existence too.
 
Sorry if I misunderstood your requirement.
 
Cheers,
 
Mike
 


________________________________

	From: rules-users-bounces at lists.jboss.org
[mailto:rules-users-bounces at lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Olenin,
Vladimir (MOH)
	Sent: 22 February 2007 18:59
	To: Rules Users List
	Subject: RE: [rules-users] talking about new features...
	
	

	This will just check if MyMapSubClass contains the entry (which
I think would not work anyways, since 'entrySet' does not comply to POJO
spec).

	 

	
________________________________


	From: rules-users-bounces at lists.jboss.org
[mailto:rules-users-bounces at lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Anstis,
Michael (M.)
	Sent: 22 February 2007 12:14
	To: Rules Users List
	Subject: RE: [rules-users] talking about new features...

	 

	Can this not be achieved by using a Map's entrySet property?

	 

	$o : MyMapSubClass( entrySet contains 'myName' );

		 

		
________________________________


		From: rules-users-bounces at lists.jboss.org
[mailto:rules-users-bounces at lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Olenin,
Vladimir (MOH)
		Sent: 22 February 2007 16:17
		To: Rules Users List
		Subject: [rules-users] talking about new features...

		Hi,

		 

		Talking about new features to be included in the new
release, I think the most compelling might be the ability to use Maps as
facts (ie, from the point of view of a complete DROOLS newbie).
Technically POJO is a Map with some restricted functionality (can't
count properties, check for property existence, etc). Is it really a big
change? The rule formulation will remain the same from what I understand
and the LHS like

		 

		            Map(name == 'myName')

		 

		Will simply mean any map object which has a key 'name'
and value for the key is 'myName'. The 'type matching' feature would be
kind of less useful in case Map fact is used, but this can probably
solved through introducing some default 'type' key which Map object
should have and in a very simplistic implementation just include 'type'
as a constraint.

		 

		Another alternative (which might probably be more
'backward compatible' with existing implementation) is to dynamically
generate POJOs from Map definition. 'type' or 'class' key will
correspond to a full qualified class name, all other keys found in the
map - POJOs properties. Or 'type' can stay 'anonymous' - might be useful
in some cases as well....

		 

		The 'weakly defined' fact objects might be quite useful
in some cases, eg when rules 'cross cut' business domain. Kind of
'dynamic rules' :-).

		 

		 

		Vlad

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-users/attachments/20070223/042f9f19/attachment.html