Hi, well, as I almost expected, it doesn't work with the public drl APIs either, failing with a similar class cast as before, and under similar conditions: * not * two trivial childs in the not doing nothing * rule removed and readded. My drl: rule "test" when not(eval(true) && eval(true)) then # absolutely nothing end Test case: ReteooRuleBase rb = new ReteooRuleBase("dummy"); PackageBuilder pkgBuilder = new PackageBuilder(); InputStream resourceStream = getClass().getResourceAsStream("/bug.drl"); pkgBuilder.addPackageFromDrl(new InputStreamReader(resourceStream)); assertTrue("Should not have errors", pkgBuilder.getErrors().isEmpty()); // Add once ... rb.addPackage(pkgBuilder.getPackage()); assertSession(rb); // This one works // ... remove ... rb.removePackage(pkgBuilder.getPackage().getName()); // and add again. rb.addPackage(pkgBuilder.getPackage()); assertSession(rb); // This fails. assertSession(RuleBase) simply creates a (stateful) session, and calls fireAllRules() on it. The code in the earlier maven project was based on how the drools unit tests construct rules programmatically, for the drl version the only change needed is the eval(true) to produce the predicate constraint. Regards, -- Andreas Andreas Kohn wrote: Hi, I'm currently integrating drools (via the .spi.* classes, not via .drl files etc) into our product, and found a very odd class cast exception when producing different rules. java.lang.ClassCastException: org.drools.reteoo.AlphaNode$AlphaMemory cannot be cast to org.drools.reteoo.BetaMemory at org.drools.reteoo.NotNode.assertLeftTuple(NotNode.java:96) at org.drools.reteoo.CompositeLeftTupleSinkAdapter.doPropagateAssertLeftTuple(CompositeLeftTupleSinkAdapter.java:145) at org.drools.reteoo.CompositeLeftTupleSinkAdapter.createAndPropagateAssertLeftTuple(CompositeLeftTupleSinkAdapter.java:57) at org.drools.reteoo.LeftInputAdapterNode.assertObject(LeftInputAdapterNode.java:142) at org.drools.reteoo.SingleObjectSinkAdapter.propagateAssertObject(SingleObjectSinkAdapter.java:42) at org.drools.reteoo.ObjectTypeNode.assertObject(ObjectTypeNode.java:184) at org.drools.reteoo.EntryPointNode.assertObject(EntryPointNode.java:146) at org.drools.reteoo.Rete.assertObject(Rete.java:113) at org.drools.reteoo.ReteooRuleBase.assertObject(ReteooRuleBase.java:218) at org.drools.reteoo.ReteooWorkingMemory$WorkingMemoryReteAssertAction.execute(ReteooWorkingMemory.java:291) at org.drools.common.AbstractWorkingMemory.executeQueuedActions(AbstractWorkingMemory.java:1475) at org.drools.common.AbstractWorkingMemory.fireAllRules(AbstractWorkingMemory.java:676) at org.drools.common.AbstractWorkingMemory.fireAllRules(AbstractWorkingMemory.java:649) at drools.scratch.RecyclingTest.assertSession(RecyclingTest.java:88) Attached you'll find a maven project exhibiting the error, and from stepping through the code pieces it looks like two nodes in the network have the same id. The id was marked as released in the removeRule() process. This is against the 5.0.0.SNAPSHOT. Am I doing something wrong? Missing anything? Or is this a real "blocker" bug? Should I open a JIRA issue for that? Regards, -- Andreas _______________________________________________ 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

Hi Mark, I've done as much as possible on drools-docs-expert. "Major" changes were - the insertion of a few paragraphs for 3.3.8.2 JAXB Transformer - the addition (to 3.1.2, Building and Configuration...,) of a non-normative (!) XML Schema for ChangeSet - splitting 4.8.3, RHS, into "Usage" and the new "The modify Statement" I had the Chapter 5 split into a chapter and a section XML, restoring the lost images while you released the fix for the xml:base; so I kept the split because it may be needed anyway, in the future. I didn't manage to read chapters 6 through 8. One thing I couldn't ask on irc yesterday concerns the ancient change notices "new in 4.0"; so I decided to remove them. The new structure of "Expert" is certainly a big improvement. I propose to continue my reviews and incremental improvements, but I'd like to reach agreement about a few typesetting issues first. I'll be back with a list. Regards Wolfgang