Godmar Back wrote: 
I think that you *should* treat facts that implement java.util.Map
differently from other facts.
Ignore their concrete class and don't worry about applying your
shadowing algorithm.
Then, treat them as if they were beans with getXYZ() methods for each
key "XYZ" they contain.

Your reply indicates that you haven't even considered this design. I
wonder why not?  (It seemed so natural to me that I assumed it's what
Drools *must* do. Especially considering the fact that Drools's chosen
scripting language, MVEL, supports accesses to maps using a special,
javascript-like syntax that allows you to verify that accesses are
side-effect free.)
It has been considered as MVEL allows you to use a map just like a pojo:
person = new HashMap();
person.name = "mark"

however as my previous email said we have been looking at solving this problem with a more encompassing problem of ontology support.

That said we are working towards making models pluggable. So that you could build in direct support for Maps as first class objects, although you would still lose object type descrimination. And ofcourse you would not get any tooling or sugar with this, as per my facttemplate issue of having to use person.setField( "name", "Godmar" )
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 4:11 PM, Edson Tirelli <tirelli@post.com> wrote:
  
    A blog I wrote a long time ago about dynamically generated beans:

http://blog.athico.com/2006/12/dynamically-generated-class-beans-as.html

    

I'm aware that I can generate beans - dynamically or statically, but
that is exactly the hassle I had hoped to avoid. (And, quite frankly,
it's not something I should have to go through when using a framework
such as Drools.)

Will the issue disappear in a future, shadowless version of your
engine? To what degree will this version depend on facts being
conforming Java beans?

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