Are you adding your event declaration file before the rules that use them? As of today, you must always do that, but as long as you do, it should work even if they are in separate files.

Hi Edson, I dig this a little deeper and found out that event declaration in separate file works correctly if file declaring the event and file containing a rule using the event have the same package. Is there a reason it should work only within the same package or should I open a JIRA? Cheers, Samuli On 29.10.2010 19:11, Edson Tirelli wrote: >     Samuli, > >     Are you adding your event declaration file before the rules that > use them? As of today, you must always do that, but as long as you do, > it should work even if they are in separate files. > >     Regarding the update, it is not possible to do that today, but feel > free to open a JIRA. I think it is something we should do. > >      Edson > > 2010/10/29 Samuli Saarinen<samuli.saarinen(a)remion.com>: >> Hello, >> >> I have the following situation with Drools 5.1.1: 2 drl files where one >> contains an event declaration: >> >> declare Event1 >>         @role(event) >>         @expires(1s) >> end >> >> and other has a simple rule: >> >> rule "Evt1" >>         when >>                 e: Event1(value == 10) >>         then >>                 System.out.println(e); >> end >> >> And I have the following test which fails: >> >> ses.insert(new Event1(1)); >> ses.fireAllRules(); >> clock.advanceTime(2, TimeUnit.SECONDS); >> ses.fireAllRules(); >> assertEquals(ses.getFactCount(), 0L); >> >> >> The same test passes if the rule and event declaration are on the same >> drl file. >> >> Further more if I declare the event in both of the files with different >> @expires the one being used is the one that is added first. I was hoping >> that the first declaration to be a "default expires" that could be >> overwritten later on with a new declaration but it seems that this is >> currently not possible. >> >> Cheers, >> Samuli -- Remion Oy           Etävalvontajärjestelmät liiketoiminnan Samuli Saarinen           tehostamiseen gsm +358 (0)50 3560075 fax +358 (0)3 2125064       www.remion.com _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users

On 8.11.2010 16:43, Edson Tirelli wrote: https://jira.jboss.org/browse/JBRULES-2779

The suggestion of placing the type declarations in the template worked. However I am eager to find a solution where they can be defined independently without exhibiting the bug mentioned earlier in the thread? Thanks, James -- View this message in context: http://drools-java-rules-engine.46999.n3.nabble.com/Declaring-events-sepa... Sent from the Drools - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users

On 29 October 2010 16:08, Samuli Saarinen <samuli.saarinen(a)remion.com <mailto:samuli.saarinen@remion.com>> wrote: Further more if I declare the event in both of the files with different @expires the one being used is the one that is added first. I was hoping that the first declaration to be a "default expires" that could be overwritten later on with a new declaration but it seems that this is currently not possible. If it were possible to enhance the very same class with different metadata such as @expires, I'd open a JIRA and call it a bug.

On 1 November 2010 07:45, Samuli Saarinen&lt;samuli.saarinen(a)remion.com&gt; wrote: > On 29.10.2010 19:18, Wolfgang Laun wrote: >> If it were possible to enhance the very same class with different >> metadata such >> as @expires, I'd open a JIRA and call it a bug. > > Should declaring the same event multiple times throw an exception then > if it's not allowed? > > I don't know if it makes sense to override other metadata but I think > with expires it could be possible to use the greater value of two > different declarations as the engine already uses multiple sources for > calculating the actual expires (explicit vs. implicit). > I'm very much against any ad-hoc rules that would silently cover a situation that might be an error due to oversight. Expiry is currently a static property of an Event type and I see absolutely no benefit in having multiple definitions. And why maximum? Why not minimum? Or average ;-) -W