[rules-dev] Bugs/Problems with 3.1.0M1

[Mark Proctor]

btw SyncrhonisedWorkingMemory used the same interface as WorkingMemory. 
StatefulSession just extends WorkingMemory, so the API change for you 
should be minimal.

Mark
Mark Proctor wrote:
> Arjun,
>
> 3.1 was never a final release, it was a milestone release, 4.0 MR2 is 
> just a continuation of this, the api and language won't fully 
> stabalise and you can expect bugs unil we do a candidate release.
>
> ShadowFacts were finished and shouldn't be visible to the user, 
> however code generation in Java has known problems - which hibernate 
> proxies also suffer from - where classes must have a default 
> constructor and must not use the final modifier. Thanks to Objenesis, 
> http://objenesis.googlecode.com/svn/docs/index.html, M2 was able to 
> get over the default constructor limitation, but there is nothing we 
> can do about final. The work towards allowing ShadowFacts to be 
> optional is additional to this, i.e. its a new feature. As said before 
> these are milestone releases, aimed to give you a "snapshot" at our 
> R&D progress, we give no guarantees and you must expect rough edges 
> and big changes - the rewards are you help us make a much better 4.0 
> final release.
>
> Backwards compatability is always an issue, but that's why we did the 
> version number change, we believe the changes and the advantages 
> gained make this worth while.
>
> Mark
> Arjun Dhar wrote:
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rules-dev mailing list
>> rules-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
>>
>>   
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-dev mailing list
> rules-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
>   

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-dev/attachments/20070514/e5e6ae91/attachment.html