[rules-users] Dynamic JavaBeans

[Yuri de Wit]

Mark,

btw, If this is a feature that makes sense from Drools pov I wouldnt
mind giving a shot at implementing it and contributing it back to
Drools.

-- yuri

On 6/28/07, Yuri de Wit <ydewit at gmail.com> wrote:
> Sure. The solution I am taking right now is dont use dynamic
> properties, which is not optimal (depending on the problem property
> changes not being batched defeats the purpose of dynamic beans).
>
> The bottom line is that I was hoping that this feature would (1)
> either already be taken care of in 4.0 or (2) become a feature request
> for future releases.
>
> -- yuri
>
> On 6/28/07, Mark Proctor <mproctor at codehaus.org> wrote:
> > No we don't do anything to batch property change listener results. But
> > maybe you can do this yourself.
> > instead of calling modify, add it to a transaction list (that you make
> > available in the current context). Then at the end of the consequence
> > you can iterate that list and call modify on each object. Or
> > alternatively don't use dynamic properties.
> >
> > Mark
> > Yuri de Wit wrote:
> > > I am not talking about assert, but modify. I have a dynamic fact
> > > already asserted but now I need to perform N changes on N different
> > > properties on the same object on the same consequence. Drools is going
> > > to traverse the RETE network N times once for each time the
> > > PropertiesListener is called (each setProperty called).
> > >
> > > -- yuri
> > >
> > > On 6/28/07, Mark Proctor <mproctor at codehaus.org> wrote:
> > >> Why would doing the assert work at the end of the consequence be any
> > >> quicker than doing it during the consequence?
> > >>
> > >> Mark
> > >> Yuri de Wit wrote:
> > >> > I noticed that changes performed on facts asserted dynamically causes
> > >> > the fact to be modified right away and therefore triggering a RETE
> > >> > network traversal and rule schedulings.
> > >> >
> > >> > For apps with a large number of facts this could be a significant
> > >> > scalability problem. At least in my case, I would like to be able to
> > >> > use dynamic facts and perform any number of updates and have those
> > >> > updates commited to working memory only when the rule consequence is
> > >> > completed.
> > >> >
> > >> > Looking at the code, it seems that it would not be a major effort to
> > >> > collect the facts received by the ReteooWorkingMemory.propertyChange
> > >> > and perform the actual modifyObject() only when the consequence
> > >> > evaluation is actually completed.
> > >> >
> > >> > Does that makes sense? Or are there side effects I am not seeing? Is
> > >> > this a problem that 4.0 already resolves?
> > >> >
> > >> > thanks in advance,
> > >> >
> > >> > -- yuri
> > >> > _______________________________________________
> > >> > rules-users mailing list
> > >> > rules-users at lists.jboss.org
> > >> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> rules-users mailing list
> > >> rules-users at lists.jboss.org
> > >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> > >>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > rules-users mailing list
> > > rules-users at lists.jboss.org
> > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rules-users mailing list
> > rules-users at lists.jboss.org
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> >
>