Re: [rules-dev] Possible Bug: Nodes of inherited types with drools.getActivation().remove()

Wow, Arjun, for the pure sake of finding an eventual bug, your strategy may be acceptable, but for writing rules, using getActivation().remove() is completely invasive to the engine... I have no idea just looking at your example about the effects of doing that... I need to go through the code. So, may I suggest you open a JIRA with your example for us to investigate the bug? Also, I'm tempted to refactor the interface if possible to not expose the method remove() in the consequence... What removes does is to remove the activation from the agenda, but the activation already fired, so what's the point of removing it? It may be the case that this is also creating an inconsistent state in the engine, so we need to check if that's the case and not expose the method anymore... Also, maybe you can show us a more complete example of what you are trying to achieve, so we can advise you on how to do it without calling the activation remove() method. Thank you for reporting! Regards, Edson 2007/6/1, Arjun Dhar <dhar_ar(a)yahoo.com&gt;: -- Edson Tirelli Software Engineer - JBoss Rules Core Developer Office: +55 11 3529-6000 Mobile: +55 11 9287-5646 JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com