I'd dearly love to hear some good argument why null in a List<Things> is good coding

practice (note: I'm not asking for "best practice"). - Compare these two sentences:

He looked into her eyes....

He looked into her eyes.

It's pretty obvious that the ellipsis indicates a planned absence of words, whereas the
second sentence just shows a void, or no void, at its end. (Or: lover or typo or oculist.)
What I'm trying to say is that a null planned to show a special case is indistinguishable
from the null that happens due to an error.

Processing "from" while covering null is just postponing the detection of an error - if
you are with me that null shouldn't be there in the first place.

But, yes, you can test:

list contains null

should tell you whether there is a fly in the ointment.

-W

On 29 April 2013 15:28, dcrissman <dcrissman@redhat.com> wrote:

I ran into this situation for which there doesn't seem to be a solution for:
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/DROOLS-71

I am using drools v. 5.5.0.Final

My preference would be for Drools to simply skip the null value, but if
that is not possible, is there a way to check for a null entry?

How have other people worked through this issue?

Thanks.

--
View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Check-for-null-entry-in-collection-before-iterating-tp4023583.html
Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users