[rules-users] PropertyChangeListeners vs. modify()

[Mark Proctor]

Barry,

I started a project like this, but lost the code :( The idea was to hava 
JavaFact interface that allowed a bean to register one or more working 
memories, and it would "notify" all working memories on change. The 
JavaFact interface would be woven into the beans at load time. I was 
going to take it one step further to allow systems like Spring to 
control the "monitoring", i.e. the spring conf file would specify which 
working memories would be registered on beans during construction - so 
spring can manage the full life cycle of working memories and facts, 
invisibly to the user. Maybe you could work on re-doing this work for ? :)

Mark
Barry Kaplan wrote:
> I'm working on an implementation that uses AspectJ to introduce the 
> required property change listeners. However the listeners will only 
> trigger when the rule when clause exits (using after advice).
>
> This is just an experiment now, as I'm not sure how appropriate 
> deferring the property change events (and hence the calls to modify) 
> for /all/ facts till end-of-when will work out. I suspect it will be 
> application dependent.
>
> -barry
>
> Edson Tirelli wrote:
>>   Controversial some times, but I play on your team. Never used PCL 
>> in my applications. :)
>>
>>   []s
>>   Edson
>>
>> Dirk Bergstrom wrote:
>>
>>> Reading through the sources, it looks like property change listeners 
>>> simply end
>>> up calling modify().  This implies that you're better off not using 
>>> them if
>>> you'll be changing more than one property at a time, since you'll 
>>> just be
>>> calling modify() a bunch of times.  Better to change all the 
>>> properties, then
>>> call modify() once.
>>>
>>> Is this a fair reading, or am I missing something?
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>