Re: [rules-dev] need advice re null handling

I think Im not agree with that... the question here is about how the Rule languaje will treat an expresionmade by a businness agent to the rules... so when a rule has a condition writen like this: Fact( field > 3) this is asking : Is there a fact of type Fact which has a field and the value of that value is greater that 3.. So, if the Fact actually exists and for 'some reason' its field "field" has a value which is not greater than 3 (the rule doesn't need to know why the value is not 3, or is 0, or null or whatever) then the condition must return (or been evaluated as) false. Its responsability for the DAO or fill implementation of the fact to put the right value on its fields, the values that MEAN something. If its null it is possible that the value was never setted or initialized, or maybe it means something else. If a bussiness guy wants to ask for been null Fact( field == null) then that question is a meaningfull one, dont let programmers decide what it means. If I wanna to ask for being greater that 3, and it has no value, then the answer is NO, "it is NO greather than 3". well... this is just my humile opinion btw.... On 15-03-2007, at 13:03, Tom Gonzalez wrote: We handle it as it can't be anything else but null cause null is returned when an access fails or some error occurs. This keeps it from falling into a valid evaluation and possibly a subtle bug going uncaught. Tom G ------------------------------ *From:* rules-dev-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [ mailto:rules-dev-bounces@lists.jboss.org<rules-dev-bounces@lists.jboss.org>] *On Behalf Of *Mark Proctor *Sent:* Thursday, March 15, 2007 12:42 PM *To:* Rules Dev List *Subject:* Re: [rules-dev] need advice re null handling Its not about giving it up, its how we handle when those fields are null, do we treat it like a primitive and assume its 0, or do we say it can't be equal to anything else but null. In the following example neither y or z is defined, thus y is null and z is 0; int x = 0; Integer y; in z; x == y // is false; x == z // is true y == null // is true Mark Tom Gonzalez wrote: The flexibility provided by an Object is very valuable. We use Integer and String objects all over the place today in our facts with drools. I would hate to give it up. Tom G ------------------------------ *From:* rules-dev-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [ mailto:rules-dev-bounces@lists.jboss.org<rules-dev-bounces@lists.jboss.org>] *On Behalf Of *Mark Proctor *Sent:* Thursday, March 15, 2007 6:29 AM *To:* Rules Dev List *Subject:* Re: [rules-dev] need advice re null handling if bar is an integer it will be 0, if its an Integer it will be null. The Q is do we make Integer work like the primitive, or do we make it work like an Object. Mark Michael Neale wrote: http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/JBRULES-627 OK, this much is clear: Foo(field == null) can be true if field is null. but, what about Foo(field > 3), and field is null? should that be false? what about Foo(field != 3) - should that be true? in SQL, null will always result in a false condition, unless you explicitly use null. Thoughts? Michael. ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ rules-dev mailing list rules-dev@lists.jboss.orghttps://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ rules-dev mailing list rules-dev@lists.jboss.orghttps://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev _______________________________________________ rules-dev mailing list rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev *Felipe Piccolini M.* felipe.piccolini(a)bluesoft.cl _______________________________________________ rules-dev mailing list rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev