Hi everyone, I am new to this mailing list, I've had a quick look at archives and didn't find anything ont this subject but sorry if this has allready been underlined. Here is my problem, while I was doing some test on v3.0.6, 4.0.0 came out, so I started to migrate on the new version. Then I found out an unexpecteed behavior on the 4.0.0. I have been compiling both with Java 5 and running whith Java 1.5.0_11. And I used versions with dependencies on both tests. I have made an exemple for you to make it as clear as possible, here is the rule : --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- package rules rule "TwoCheeses" when $cheese1 : Cheese(); $cheese2 : Cheese(); then System.out.println($cheese1); System.out.println($cheese2); System.out.println("TwoCheeses"); end --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- When I run it on V3.0.6, with this code : --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- package rules; import java.io.InputStreamReader; import org.drools.RuleBase; import org.drools.RuleBaseFactory; import org.drools.WorkingMemory; import org.drools.compiler.PackageBuilder; public class Cheese { public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception{ PackageBuilder builder = new PackageBuilder(); builder.addPackageFromDrl(new InputStreamReader( Cheese.class.getResourceAsStream ("rule.drl"))); RuleBase ruleBase = RuleBaseFactory.newRuleBase(); ruleBase.addPackage(builder.getPackage()); WorkingMemory workingMemory = ruleBase.newWorkingMemory (); Cheese cheese = new Cheese(); workingMemory.assertObject(cheese); workingMemory.fireAllRules(); } } --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The rule doesn't fire, which is normal AMHA since only one Cheese object is asserted to the WM When I run it on V4.0.0, whith this code : --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- package rules; import java.io.InputStreamReader; import org.drools.RuleBase; import org.drools.RuleBaseFactory; import org.drools.StatefulSession; import org.drools.compiler.PackageBuilder; public class Cheese { public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception{ PackageBuilder builder = new PackageBuilder(); builder.addPackageFromDrl(new InputStreamReader( Cheese.class.getResourceAsStream ("rule.drl"))); RuleBase ruleBase = RuleBaseFactory.newRuleBase(); ruleBase.addPackage(builder.getPackage()); StatefulSession statefulSession = ruleBase.newStatefulSession(); Cheese cheese = new Cheese(); statefulSession.assertObject(cheese); statefulSession.fireAllRules(); } } --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now the rule fires and $cheese1 $cheese2 have the same reference. I have been searching in all docs, this modification of behavior doesn't seem to be expected, has anyone noticed this? Thanks for your help. Chris _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users

On 5/15/07, *Edson Tirelli* <tirelli(a)post.com <mailto:tirelli@post.com>> wrote: Version 3.0.x prevents by default a single fact from matching multiple patterns. For a couple of reasons we had to change the default in 4.0 to allow a single fact to match multiple patterns. If you don't want this to happen, you can use one of the following approaches: Huh - shades of Drools 2.X. If you don't mind me asking, what are the 'couple of reasons'? If there are reasons, then people might want to know before choosing to, for instance, turn on the system property. - Geoffrey -- Geoffrey Wiseman ------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users

Chris Version 3.0.x prevents by default a single fact from matching multiple patterns. For a couple of reasons we had to change the default in 4.0 to allow a single fact to match multiple patterns. If you don't want this to happen, you can use one of the following approaches: * Change the behavior for the whole rulebase. You can do that by either setting a system property ("drools.removeIdentities=true") or creating a RuleBaseConfiguration instance: RuleBaseConfiguration conf = new RuleBaseConfiguration(); conf.setRemoveIdentities( true ); RuleBase rulebase = new ReteooRuleBase( conf ); * Alternativelly, you can manually add a constraint to avoid the behavior for specific rules, using the "this" keyword. rule "TwoCheeses" when $cheese1 : Cheese(); $cheese2 : Cheese( this != $cheese1 ); then System.out.println($cheese1); System.out.println($cheese2); System.out.println ("TwoCheeses"); end We will add such information to the documentation, but the above shall give you the idea. Hope it helps, Edson 2007/5/15, Chris Woodrow < woodrow.chris(a)gmail.com&gt;: > > Hi everyone, > I am new to this mailing list, I've had a quick look at archives and > didn't find anything ont this subject but sorry if this has allready been > underlined. > > Here is my problem, while I was doing some test on v3.0.6, 4.0.0 came > out, so I started to migrate on the new version. Then I found out an > unexpecteed behavior on the 4.0.0. > > I have been compiling both with Java 5 and running whith Java 1.5.0_11. > And I used versions with dependencies on both tests. > > I have made an exemple for you to make it as clear as possible, here is > the rule : > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > package rules > > rule "TwoCheeses" > when > $cheese1 : Cheese(); > $cheese2 : Cheese(); > then > System.out.println($cheese1); > System.out.println($cheese2); > System.out.println("TwoCheeses"); > end > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > When I run it on V3.0.6, with this code : > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > package rules; > > import java.io.InputStreamReader; > > import org.drools.RuleBase; > import org.drools.RuleBaseFactory; > import org.drools.WorkingMemory; > import org.drools.compiler.PackageBuilder; > > public class Cheese { > public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception{ > PackageBuilder builder = new PackageBuilder(); > builder.addPackageFromDrl(new InputStreamReader( > Cheese.class.getResourceAsStream ("rule.drl"))); > > RuleBase ruleBase = RuleBaseFactory.newRuleBase(); > > ruleBase.addPackage(builder.getPackage()); > > WorkingMemory workingMemory = ruleBase.newWorkingMemory (); > > Cheese cheese = new Cheese(); > > workingMemory.assertObject(cheese); > > workingMemory.fireAllRules(); > } > } > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > The rule doesn't fire, which is normal AMHA since only one Cheese object > is asserted to the WM > > When I run it on V4.0.0, whith this code : > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > package rules; > > import java.io.InputStreamReader; > > import org.drools.RuleBase; > import org.drools.RuleBaseFactory; > import org.drools.StatefulSession; > import org.drools.compiler.PackageBuilder; > > public class Cheese { > public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception{ > PackageBuilder builder = new PackageBuilder(); > builder.addPackageFromDrl(new InputStreamReader( > Cheese.class.getResourceAsStream ("rule.drl"))); > > RuleBase ruleBase = RuleBaseFactory.newRuleBase(); > > ruleBase.addPackage(builder.getPackage()); > > StatefulSession statefulSession = ruleBase.newStatefulSession(); > > > Cheese cheese = new Cheese(); > > statefulSession.assertObject(cheese); > > statefulSession.fireAllRules(); > } > } > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Now the rule fires and $cheese1 $cheese2 have the same reference. > > I have been searching in all docs, this modification of behavior doesn't > seem to be expected, has anyone noticed this? > > Thanks for your help. > > Chris > > > > _______________________________________________ > rules-users mailing list > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users > > -- Edson Tirelli Software Engineer - JBoss Rules Core Developer Office: +55 11 3529-6000 Mobile: +55 11 9287-5646 JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users