I'd dearly love to hear some good argument why null in a List<Things> is good coding practice (note: I'm not asking for "best practice"). - Compare these two sentences: He looked into her eyes.... He looked into her eyes. It's pretty obvious that the ellipsis indicates a planned absence of words, whereas the second sentence just shows a void, or no void, at its end. (Or: lover or typo or oculist.) What I'm trying to say is that a null planned to show a special case is indistinguishable from the null that happens due to an error. Processing "from" while covering null is just postponing the detection of an error - if you are with me that null shouldn't be there in the first place. But, yes, you can test: list contains null should tell you whether there is a fly in the ointment. -W On 29 April 2013 15:28, dcrissman <dcrissman(a)redhat.com <mailto:dcrissman@redhat.com>> wrote: I ran into this situation for which there doesn't seem to be a solution for: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/DROOLS-71 I am using drools v. 5.5.0.Final My preference would be for Drools to simply skip the null value, but if that is not possible, is there a way to check for a null entry? How have other people worked through this issue? Thanks. -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Check-for-null-entry-in-collection-befo... Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users