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.


Greg Barton wrote:
I think it's a good idea, so ya, change to "insert"


--- Mark Proctor <mproctor@codehaus.org> 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

rules-dev mailing list


____________________________________________________________________________________Get the free Yahoo! toolbar and rest assured with the added security of spyware protection.
rules-dev mailing list


_______________________________________________ rules-dev mailing list rules-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev