Edson,
I have since changed my schema but here was my issue:
rule1.drl:
import com.company.DataClass.AlternativeKey;
import com.company.DataClass;
rule "Some rule"
when
DataClass.AlternativeKey(someParm == true)
then
...
end
Different drlf file:
rule2.drl
import com.company.AnotherClass.AlternativeKey;
import com.company.AnotherClass;
rule "Another rule"
when
AnotherClass.AlternativeKey(diffParm == 1)
then
...
end
This was the gist of what I was doing. The outer classes' names were different, it was the INNER class of each of these classes that had the same name. I was actually getting compile errors on the import statements. Like I said, these rules worked fine if loaded separately, but once I tried to put them all int he same rule base, I was getting the import collision error. Later on this evening (when I'm not at work), I'll try to put together a small test case and upload it. In the meantime, you can look skim over this and let me know if something jumps out at you.
Thanks,
Eric
On Thu, 2007-07-26 at 10:32 -0300, Edson Tirelli wrote:
Eric,
Not sure if I understood your problem, but if you have multiple classes with the same name, and the only difference is that they are inner classes of different classes, I guess what you need to do is to fully qualify your class names in your rules...
rule xxx
when
my.package.MyClass.MyInnerClass( ... )
...
end
If this is not your problem, can you please show us an example so we understand it better?
Edson
2007/7/25, Eric Miles <eric.miles@kronos.com>:
Due to how JAXB treats anonymous inner complex types, I ended up with a public static inner classes named AlternativeKey in several of my data classes I have several rules written to deal with each data class individually that all work ok. However, when I attempt to put them all in the same rule base (all belong to the same package), I get an import collision exception on the AlternativeKey inner class. Depending on where in the builder I add the resource depends on which AlternativeKey the compiler bitches about (validity). I'm not familiar with the source at all, so I'm unsure as to where to look for this. However, this sounds like a bug to me? There is an easy workaround for this as I I just don't use anonymous types and define them in my schema explicitly. Just thought I'd identify this as a possible issue.
Thanks,
Eric
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
--
Edson Tirelli
Software Engineer - JBoss Rules Core Developer
Office: +55 11 3529-6000
Mobile: +55 11 9287-5646
JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com