Drools always looks for getters/setters, never for the actual internal
attribute.
As long as you have an instance of a given interface and your rules are
written against the interface you should be fine in Drools 5.
Drools 4 used shadow facts, so, there would be more considerations to
make on drools 4.
[]s
Edson
2009/3/19 Premkumar Stephen <prem18(a)gmail.com>
Hello Folks,
I have been looking at options of using ruby objects as fact objects in
Drool's working memory.
One obvious way is using services.
Another path that I have been researching about is to use Spring as
outlined here
http://www.jroller.com/habuma/entry/spring_meet_ruby
Now, in this example, if the Lime ruby object were like a POJO, (contains
fields), will I be able to insert this object into the workingMemory? My
Lime interface would have getters and setters. Will the engine look for the
fields themselves in an object or can it work with just getters and setters
( as would be declared in the Lime.java interface and defined in the Lime.rb
ruby class?
Are there any drawbacks in doing it this way?
Any comments/pointers will be appreciated.
Thanks!!
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
--
Edson Tirelli
JBoss Drools Core Development
JBoss, a division of Red Hat @
www.jboss.com