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.)
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 4:11 PM, Edson Tirelli <tirelli(a)post.com> wrote:
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