Re: [rules-users] Are there second-rate fact types?
On 10/06/2014, Davide Sottara <dsotty(a)gmail.com> wrote:
java.util.Collections (and descendants) are not @typesafe by
default,
I'll check the reason for that.
OK.
More generally, if a fact is declared as not @typesafe, the runtime
failure should be more graceful.
But (according to you) java.util.Collections is *not* @typesafe, and
this runtime failure cannot be called "graceful".
Can a java.util.X be declared as @typesafe? If so, how? Is any of this
documented anywhere?
-W
Davide
On 06/10/2014 01:26 PM, Wolfgang Laun wrote:
> Consider:
>
> class Foo { /*...*/ }
>
> rule checkFoo
> when
> Foo( noSuchField > 0 )
> then ... end
>
> DRL compilation reports an error (Error: unable to resolve method ...)
> and identifies rule, line and column, which is fine.
>
> Now let's look at:
>
> import java.util.ArrayList;
> rule checkArrayList
> when
> ArrayList( noSuchField > 0 )
> then ... end
>
> The same DRL compiler (checked with 5.5.0 and 6.0.0) accepts this, and
> there is a nasty exception thrown at runtime. This is inconvenient,
> since the exception can be thrown by any code inserting an ArrayList
> object, and the faulty rule isn't identified.
>
> Why are certain classes second-rate?
>
> -W
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users