Mark Proctor wrote: > Is anyone using StatelessSession.getQueryResults(). Realised that it > was a mistake adding that. the idea of StatelessSessionResult is you > have something that is potentially serialisable. To execute that > method then you have to have a refernce to the entire WorkingMemory > and that must reference the RuleBase, so it suddenly makes that a > little heavy. I'm thinking of removing that method and also combining > it with the ability to specify only which inserted objects and set > globals are exported as part of a StatelessSessionResult, if not > specified all inserted objects will be made available and no globals. > > I'm not sure that querries make any sense on a stateless session > anyway, only stateful. > > This is an API change (removing getQueryResult), and if people are > using it I will leave as is, but I'm not sure if anyone will be using > that anyway. What do people think? > > Mark > _______________________________________________ > rules-dev mailing list > rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev > Actually there may be a compromise. getQueryResults() can be left, but only works if you don't serialise, once we seriaise that method becomes Disabled as the ruleBase and WorkingMemory are lost. I think that will work and allow me to achieve the best of both worlds, without breaking the API. _______________________________________________ rules-dev mailing list rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev