[rules-users] Odd static inner class behavior

[Edson Tirelli]

    Eric,

    Thanks, I understand now.

     What happens is that if both DRL files declare the same package name,
all their contents will be merged. It means that you would end up with both
imports in the same namespace:

import com.company.DataClass.AlternativeKey;
import com.company.AnotherClass.AlternativeKey;

     And so the engine will raise an error saying that it does not know
which one you are refering to when you write simply:

AlternativeKey

    I think the engine behavior is correct, since the idea of loading two
different files with the same name space into the same package builder is to
merge them, or even replace (update) that eventually have the same name.

    What do you think?

    Edson


2007/7/26, Eric Miles <eric.miles at kronos.com>:
>
>  Edson,
>
> I have since changed my schema but here was my issue:
>
> rule1.drl:
> import com.company.DataClass.AlternativeKey;
> import com.company.DataClass;
>
> rule "Some rule"
>     when
>         DataClass.AlternativeKey(someParm == true)
>     then
>         ...
> end
>
> Different drlf file:
> rule2.drl
> import com.company.AnotherClass.AlternativeKey;
> import com.company.AnotherClass;
>
> rule "Another rule"
>     when
>         AnotherClass.AlternativeKey(diffParm == 1)
>     then
>         ...
> end
>
>
> This was the gist of what I was doing.  The outer classes' names were
> different, it was the INNER class of each of these classes that had the same
> name.  I was actually getting compile errors on the import statements.  Like
> I said, these rules worked fine if loaded separately, but once I tried to
> put them all int he same rule base, I was getting the import collision
> error.  Later on this evening (when I'm not at work), I'll try to put
> together a small test case and upload it.  In the meantime, you can look
> skim over this and let me know if something jumps out at you.
>
> Thanks,
> Eric
>
> On Thu, 2007-07-26 at 10:32 -0300, Edson Tirelli wrote:
>
>     Eric,
>
>     Not sure if I understood your problem, but if you have multiple
> classes with the same name, and the only difference is that they are inner
> classes of different classes, I guess what you need to do is to fully
> qualify your class names in your rules...
>
> rule xxx
> when
>     my.package.MyClass.MyInnerClass( ... )
> ...
> end
>
>    If this is not your problem, can you please show us an example so we
> understand it better?
>
>    Edson
>
>
>  2007/7/25, Eric Miles <eric.miles at kronos.com>:
>
>  Due to how JAXB treats anonymous inner complex types, I ended up with a
> public static inner classes named AlternativeKey in several of my data
> classes  I have several rules written to deal with each data class
> individually that all work ok.  However, when I attempt to put them all in
> the same rule base (all belong to the same package), I get an import
> collision exception on the AlternativeKey inner class.  Depending on where
> in the builder I add the resource depends on which AlternativeKey the
> compiler bitches about (validity).  I'm not familiar with the source at all,
> so I'm unsure as to where to look for this.  However, this sounds like a bug
> to me?  There is an easy workaround for this as I I just don't use anonymous
> types and define them in my schema explicitly.  Just thought I'd identify
> this as a possible issue.
>
> Thanks,
> Eric
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users at 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
>
>


-- 
  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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-users/attachments/20070726/566404df/attachment.html