I agree with SQL. If you also want to catch null you could do Foo(field > 3 | == null) cheers Steve On 3/15/07, Michael Neale <michael.neale(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- Steven Williams Supervising Consultant Object Consulting Office: 8615 4500 Mob: 0439 898 668 Fax: 8615 4501 stevenw(a)objectconsulting.com.au www.objectconsulting.com.au consulting | development | training | support our experience makes the difference

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:

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:

I think Im not agree with that... the question here is about how the Rule languaje will treat an expresion made 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: Felipe Piccolini M. felipe.piccolini(a)bluesoft.cl

As I see it, this is not like SQL, because Tom said "null is returned when an access fails or some error occurs", but then the guy who prepare the SQL statements has to be acknowloedge of the meaning of a null return, so he writes the querys in a correct way to the application. Here thats not the case, the guy who writes the rules doesn't need to know why that field is null, or 0 or blank, he ask for a statement of truth (field ! = 3), he spect not reason why that field is not 3, maybe the value of the field is 0,1,2,4,5... null, " ", or whatever another value possible, he is just asking to not be specific one. If someone need to manage the null value in a diferent way, then he must prepare the Fact Objects, Value Objects, Pojos, Wrappers in a diferent way, design to do what he wants to be done with null values but not at the rules language level. If I wanna ask for null value in a field to check for errors for example, I should ask for that " Fact( field == null )". Maybe it could be a parametric flag somewhere telling the engine how to manage nulls, and set a default... Another question: How the engine manage to return to Fact( field == null) when field is a primitive?, it makes autoboxing?, comaparing Integer (for int) to null or something like that?, if the Engine do so, why?, maybe the rule's writer was wrong when he wrote that, or maybe he just wanted to check if the field is blank/ zero/not setter/etc... On 15-03-2007, at 20:23, Michael Neale wrote: Felipe Piccolini M. felipe.piccolini(a)bluesoft.cl

Sounds right. Thanks, Tom G ________________________________ From: rules-dev-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-dev-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Michael Neale Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 7:25 PM To: Rules Dev List Subject: Re: [rules-dev] need advice re null handling well, with nulls, it only makes sense if you have knowledge that a given field is NOT a primitive, which is clearly something that only the developer would know. So basically, from what I am hearing, because we transparently allow primitives, null should not be treated specially, other then for equality. Dealing with specific inequality for example: Foo(field != 3) could be true if field is null. However, Foo(field <, contains, > etcc....) will ALWAYS be false if field is null. The only thing that could be true when a field is null is equality, or not equals. I will add some more tests for this. On 3/17/07, Felipe Piccolini <felipe.piccolini(a)bluesoft.cl > wrote: As I see it, this is not like SQL, because Tom said " null is returned when an access fails or some error occurs", but then the guy who prepare the SQL statements has to be acknowloedge of the meaning of a null return, so he writes the querys in a correct way to the application. Here thats not the case, the guy who writes the rules doesn't need to know why that field is null, or 0 or blank, he ask for a statement of truth (field != 3), he spect not reason why that field is not 3, maybe the value of the field is 0,1,2,4,5... null, " ", or whatever another value possible, he is just asking to not be specific one. If someone need to manage the null value in a diferent way, then he must prepare the Fact Objects, Value Objects, Pojos, Wrappers in a diferent way, design to do what he wants to be done with null values but not at the rules language level. If I wanna ask for null value in a field to check for errors for example, I should ask for that " Fact( field == null )". Maybe it could be a parametric flag somewhere telling the engine how to manage nulls, and set a default... Another question: How the engine manage to return to Fact( field == null) when field is a primitive?, it makes autoboxing?, comaparing Integer (for int) to null or something like that?, if the Engine do so, why?, maybe the rule's writer was wrong when he wrote that, or maybe he just wanted to check if the field is blank/zero/not setter/etc... On 15-03-2007, at 20:23, Michael Neale wrote: Felipe - yes that is consistent. But what about: Fact( field != 3 ) now if field is null, its certainly not equal to 3, but should this be true? or because of null, it is always false? In SQL, it would always be false. On 3/16/07, Felipe Piccolini < felipe.piccolini(a)bluesoft.cl <mailto:felipe.piccolini@bluesoft.cl> > wrote: I think Im not agree with that... the question here is about how the Rule languaje will treat an expresion made 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-dev@lists.jboss.org> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev ________________________________ _______________________________________________ rules-dev mailing list rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-dev@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 Felipe Piccolini M. felipe.piccolini(a)bluesoft.cl <mailto:felipe.piccolini@bluesoft.cl> _______________________________________________ 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 Felipe Piccolini M. felipe.piccolini(a)bluesoft.cl <mailto:felipe.piccolini@bluesoft.cl> _______________________________________________ rules-dev mailing list rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev

yeah, exactly. numbers can be special if needed - any type can be treated specially. maybe for numbers null == 0 ? On 3/15/07, Mark Proctor <mproctor(a)codehaus.org&gt; wrote: