Assume this: A is a field of B is a field of C is a field of D is
a...
Object references remain the same, in all objects; I simply modify
A, and
"when you change [A] you are also changing [B], so I must notify
the
engine for [B]" but that's a field of C... D... E... and so on,
until
'I' for infinity?!
It's just a change in some fact object's hashCode that
causes this problem.
If you don't want any indexing in your rule engine. If you want
indexing, you have to notify the engine. Changes to nested accessors
have always been invisible to the engine. If a nested access
changes, you must notify the engine of the root fact.
Mark
-W
On 22 June 2011 22:37, Mark Proctor <mproctor@codehaus.org>
wrote:
> As One is a field of Two. When you change One you are also
changing Two, so
> you most notify the engine for Two too.
>
> MArk
> On 22/06/2011 14:37, Wolfgang Laun wrote:
>
> To avoid misunderstandings: yes, equals() is written
according to hashCode,
> i.e., according to the usual Java conventions.
>
> If
>
> - an object of class Two contains a member of class One,
and
> - one object Two and one object One are facts, and
> - a rule modifies One, changing its hashCode
>
> then
>
> another rule containing the patterns
> $one: One()
> $two: Two( $x: one == $one )
>
> does NOT fire (any more).
>
> If you use the constraint
> one == $one || != $one
> the rule will fire, and you can observe that hashCode results
for $one and
> $x are the same and that $one.equals( $x ) returns true.
>
> Reproduced using 5.1.1 and 5.2.x
>
> -W
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-dev mailing list
> rules-dev@lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-dev mailing list
> rules-dev@lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
>
>