[rules-dev] Bugs/Problems with 3.1.0M1

[Arjun Dhar]

Mark Proctor <mproctor <at> codehaus.org> writes:

> 
> Sorry thats the stateful working memory interface, StatefulSession - 
> just incase my opening paragraph confuses anyone.
> Mark Proctor wrote:


Hi Appreciate the quick response and accept all that is written; as for 1 and 
3.2.

TECHNICAL
================================
[1]
"Can you show me a use case where you neeed 
> access to the WorkingMemory from a StatelessSession"
... Conceptually No, since you have it covered by allowing a person to Assert a 
list at a time (Faster when doing Batch mode; this is what I was doing) , 
except had built a wrapper method On the 'WorkingMemory' to achieve this. So 
will just have to do re-factoring to my code which again will not be backward 
compatible.

..So to summarize: Code written for JBoss Rules 4 may not work for 3.0 and 3.1. 
If that isnt and enginerring issue then kindly ignore.

[3.2]
Suggestion:: If Shadows are not fully implemented then they should be 
encapsulated and not be visible to users. From porting from 3.0 to 3.1 a 
NullPointerException due to a feature not to be delivered, can be considered a 
bug. From a blind QA perspective 3.2 is a bug!


ROOT CAUSE
================================
... I think if we look at both these points and from a project level, there is 
an issue of Backward Compatibility. I guess you guys have your hands full to 
care about that.

...But seriously, I understand the constraints you guys have to work with :o) 
but wanted to let you know that while I'm a critic (hope am not being picky) 
I'm also a big fan on what 
is being built.

Thanks again!
Arjun