Re: [rules-dev] change "assert" to "insert"+ other changes

Ok, I'm now doing these changes. Mark Proctor wrote: > I've had no further feedback on this, so I'm going to make this > change as part of the next milestone release (this week) - these > changes are considerable. > > assert will change to insert > -avoid the constant keyword collision with "assert", most languages > are seem to support this now > -will change in both the drl and working memory api > > modify to become update > -instead of workingMemory.modify(FactHandle, Object) it will be > workingMemory.update(FactHandle, Object), will change modify to > update in drl. > -this method is now only used for ShadowFact objects, it's a method > to let the engine know that an external object has been updated and > to update it's internal cache. and reprocess. > -avoid keyword collision in MVEL which has nice "modify" sugar now > > insertObject, retractObject and updateObject to beome insert, retract > and update > -the Object part seems superflous, might as well remove it, > especially as we start to support none Object fact types > -drl and working memory api will now use the same method names. > > added new WorkingMemory modifyRetract and modifyAssert methods > -allows for non shadow fact objects. > -When not using shadow facts (although will ofcourse work with shadow > facts) you cannot call 'update', or what use to be called 'modify', > because we need to know the "old" value of fields so we can retract > the from the workign memory. The only safe way is to first retract > the object and then assert it. However with the existing api this > adds extra work and results in new fact handle. modifyRetract and > modifyAssert can now be used together to "simulate" a modify on a > none shadow fact object in two parts. First call modifyRetract, then > change your field values, then call modifyAssert. > -MVEL has sugar to do: modify ( person ) { age += 1, location = > "london" }, what actually happens here is it first calls > modifyRetract then applies the setters and then calles modifyAssert. > > Mark > > Greg Barton wrote: >> I think it's a good idea, so ya, change to "insert" >> >> GreG >> >> --- Mark Proctor <mproctor(a)codehaus.org&gt; wrote: >> >> >>> We have been getting querries with regards to jdk >>> assert collision and >>> jboss rules assert, for this reason we are thinking >>> of changing it to >>> insert for 4.0. Further to that its causing language >>> integrations issues >>> for us as we expand pluggeable dialects. For this >>> reason we are thinking >>> of chaning assert to insert, this would be an api >>> change and a language >>> level change. I'd thought I'd throw this out to the >>> community before we >>> do it. This of course breaks backwards >>> compatability. >>> >>> Mark >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rules-dev mailing list >>> rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________________________________Get the free Yahoo! toolbar and rest assured with the added security of spyware protection. >> http://new.toolbar.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/norton/index.php >> _______________________________________________ >> rules-dev mailing list >> rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://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 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ rules-dev mailing list rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev