Due to a bug we came up with the following rule: /* Rule "intriguing" when $foo: Foo( $foo.getBar() == null ) then ... */ Our original intention was to actually generate the rule like so: /* Rule "intended" when $foo: Foo( bar == null ) then ... */ In most cases the "intriguing" rule actually seem to behave much like the "intended". We are unsure way. Moreover, we suspect that sometime we get wrong, or rather unexpected results when firing up this rule. -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Suspicious-behaviour-when-using-a-bound... Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users

Apologies, I had wanted to know: 1. Is it expected that this two rules would behave the same given the same input? Not sure I understand how would it even compile and how would the var be conditioned upon before being assigned . 2. The input was just some random string. 3. The results are unexpected as we are getting a hit on this row even though the field is populated with some string. BUT what is suspicious is that it would seem we very rarely get this sort of behaviour. We also suspect if it has something to do with concurrency or multiple sessions concurrently executing. Most importantly, I would like to understand 1) - how is this even possible to come up with such a pattern and is it expected to behave like the intended rule -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Suspicious-behaviour-when-using-a-bound... Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users