[rules-users] Matching on instanceof without eval?

[Edson Tirelli]

   Interesting. I had never tried it without the ".class" static field in
the class name. I need to investigate this a further but I think what is
happening behind the scenes is that since you are using nested accessors
(option.class), it is getting transparently re-written into an inline
eval(). This should not be a big deal, since you don't have (I guess) too
many classes and indexing/hashing would not help you that much either. So I
guess performance is probably the same, but as you said, more readable.

   Question: what is the actual type of your "option" field? I mean, what
class does getOption() returns? Object?

   []s
   Edson


2008/5/24 Barry Kaplan <groups1 at memelet.com>:

>
> Edson, I do not assert the Instruments, on the Positions which contains
> multiple Instruments. I an trying to match Option Positions (ie, Positions
> that contain one or more Option legs).
>
> What I did was...
>
> when
>    position : Position(option : instrument, option.class ==
> OptionInstrument)
>
> ...and this works correctly. Is the above more or less efficient than using
> eval or the from-clause? It certainly is easier to read.
>
> thanks!
>
> -barry
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/Matching-on-instanceof-without-eval--tp17425953p17453068.html
> Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>



-- 
Edson Tirelli
JBoss Drools Core Development
Office: +55 11 3529-6000
Mobile: +55 11 9287-5646
JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-users/attachments/20080525/a752c587/attachment.html