Mark,

   I'v been trying to get the way to patch that, but I must confess that is way too complex for me now.. My best
guess is that when the update(retract/insert) is done, it just take the factHandle modified to rebuild the ReteRuleBase
so when the activations are setted in place this doesnt care about another fact update to fill the AgendaGroupImpl.

  I dont really know the best way to modify the code... I bow before u guys... 

 Also tried your suggestion using something like : modify ( cheese ) { price = 25, quality = premium }

 But I get compilation erros saying that "modify(myFact) is not defined"... so I dont really know how to use
this MVEL functionality... got ur "what is new in drools 4.0", search at examples and mailing-list, but cant get the right way
to make that work.

  If you could help me with any working example, or maybe a work-around... I sont wanna use a set of rules that must be writen in a
sequence mode using salience.... I need to write a lot of rules in an independent way. 

Sorry for my english, and thank you very much.


On 28-06-2007, at 16:43, Mark Proctor wrote:

feel free to work on a patch for us and let us know what you come up with.

Mark
Felipe Piccolini wrote:
Mark,

   What about my previous mail where I report an issue with update using dynamic JavaBeans (using propertyListeners)?

The problem is that when the engine is fired again from an propertyListener the evaluations on conditions (seems to me)
dont take the new state of the Facts changed in the set<Attribute> call.

I will try using MVEL modify, but thats not the better solution, because the feature of propertyListerners inside javaBeans let
me write my rules in a cleaner way from BRMS/bussines editor.

Thanks.


On 28-06-2007, at 8:28, Mark Proctor wrote:

If it can be done cleanly I'm not averse to it. however there is something else...
In the new MVEL dialect you no longer need propertychangelisteners if you don't want to call update()

modify ( cheese ) { price = 25, quality = premium }

This will modify all the setters and notify the engine at the end of the block setter. Is that good enough for you?

Mark
Yuri de Wit wrote:
Mark,

btw, If this is a feature that makes sense from Drools pov I wouldnt
mind giving a shot at implementing it and contributing it back to
Drools.

-- yuri

On 6/28/07, Yuri de Wit <ydewit@gmail.com> wrote:
Sure. The solution I am taking right now is dont use dynamic
properties, which is not optimal (depending on the problem property
changes not being batched defeats the purpose of dynamic beans).

The bottom line is that I was hoping that this feature would (1)
either already be taken care of in 4.0 or (2) become a feature request
for future releases.

-- yuri

On 6/28/07, Mark Proctor <mproctor@codehaus.org> wrote:
> No we don't do anything to batch property change listener results. But
> maybe you can do this yourself.
> instead of calling modify, add it to a transaction list (that you make
> available in the current context). Then at the end of the consequence
> you can iterate that list and call modify on each object. Or
> alternatively don't use dynamic properties.
>
> Mark
> Yuri de Wit wrote:
> > I am not talking about assert, but modify. I have a dynamic fact
> > already asserted but now I need to perform N changes on N different
> > properties on the same object on the same consequence. Drools is going
> > to traverse the RETE network N times once for each time the
> > PropertiesListener is called (each setProperty called).
> >
> > -- yuri
> >
> > On 6/28/07, Mark Proctor <mproctor@codehaus.org> wrote:
> >> Why would doing the assert work at the end of the consequence be any
> >> quicker than doing it during the consequence?
> >>
> >> Mark
> >> Yuri de Wit wrote:
> >> > I noticed that changes performed on facts asserted dynamically causes
> >> > the fact to be modified right away and therefore triggering a RETE
> >> > network traversal and rule schedulings.
> >> >
> >> > For apps with a large number of facts this could be a significant
> >> > scalability problem. At least in my case, I would like to be able to
> >> > use dynamic facts and perform any number of updates and have those
> >> > updates commited to working memory only when the rule consequence is
> >> > completed.
> >> >
> >> > Looking at the code, it seems that it would not be a major effort to
> >> > collect the facts received by the ReteooWorkingMemory.propertyChange
> >> > and perform the actual modifyObject() only when the consequence
> >> > evaluation is actually completed.
> >> >
> >> > Does that makes sense? Or are there side effects I am not seeing? Is
> >> > this a problem that 4.0 already resolves?
> >> >
> >> > thanks in advance,
> >> >
> >> > -- yuri
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > rules-users mailing list
> >> >
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> rules-users mailing list
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > rules-users mailing list
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
>

_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list


_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list

                                                                        
Felipe Piccolini M.



 

_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users

_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users

                                                                        
Felipe Piccolini M.
felipe.piccolini@bluesoft.cl