Thanks for this. We will probably exclude the PersistentCollection
RuleBaseConfiguration conf = new RuleBaseConfiguration();
RuleBase ruleBase = RuleBaseFactory.newRuleBase(conf);
to fix our problem, luckily we treat these collections as immutable
[mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Peter Mikula
Sent: 01 October 2007 10:37 AM
To: Rules Users List
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Hibernate
Heyns, Juan wrote:
Thanks for the reply... I will give this a go. Has ShadowProxyUtils
introduced in 4.0.1, I didn't get this behavior in 4.0...
I was getting the exception for both versions, it happened always when
I have iterated over the collection in the "then" part.
It is quite imperative that I get this working, since our project
depends on Hibernate and Drools. Should we create a JIRA for this?
Beware that you should treat the persistent collections as immutable
if you want to use the submitted patch.
PS: checking the manual again I have discovered that there were
already done some improvements. You can control shadow proxying with
drools.shadowProxy = false
drools.shadowproxy.exclude = org.domainy.* org.domainx.ClassZ
so there is not much use for that patch.
rules-users mailing list
"Employees of Lonmin Platinum ("Lonplats") are not authorised to conclude
electronic transactions or to enter into electronic agreements on behalf
of Lonplats. Any electronic signature (other than an advanced electronic
signature as defined in the Electronic Communications and Transactions
Act of 2003) added to a data message (such as an email or an attachment
to an (email) ostensibly on behalf of Lonplats by a Lonplats employee shall
not be legally binding on Lonplats and Lonplats shall incur no liability of
any nature whatsoever, directly or indirectly, arising from such act on the
part of it's employee. It is further recorded that nothing (other than an
advanced electronic signature) inserted into any data message
emanating from Lonplats shall be construed as constituting an electronic