Re: [rules-users] Re: Testing out Type Declarations in simple rule file causing exceptions

So I did further testing and I was able to narrow it down. Somehow the culprit is with the import statements. My DRL file has a package name of: package com.test.abc dialect "mvel" So, it appears that in drools using MVEL, a fully qualified name is required to instantiate the class? It's quite strange though. Considering that I'm following the docs, I should be able to dynamically create a new type declaration instance without qualifying it. The following somehow works: then insert(new com.test.abc.Domestic()); end Why is drools/mvel being so strict? -ck On Mar 15, 2009, at 4:23 AM, CK wrote: Hi, > > I'm wondering if I am doing something wrong in my code: > > I create dummy type declarations to indicate presence of certain states > (is there possibly a better way of doing this?): > > declare Domestic > dummy : boolean > end > > declare Multiple > dummy : boolean > end > > rule "..." > when > ...... > then > insert(new Domestic()); > end > > > Something like this is giving me the following errors during DRL file > parsing: > > Unable to build expression for 'consequence': Failed to compile: 1 > compilation error(s): > - (0,0) could not resolve class: Domestic ' insert(new Domestic()); > > > Based on what the docs say, this should generate the proper dynamic > classes and I should immediately be able to use the declared types. > > I did additional checking by outputting the registered Type Declarations. > These two types are indeed registered in the > PackageBuilder.getPackage().getTypeDeclarations(). > > So I can only guess that either I'm doing something wrong here or there is > a bug in the CR1 release. > > > _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users