[rules-users] Drools, Grails, and default packages for domain objects

[Costello, Robert]

I have to say, the Guvnor is awfully cool.  I was able to import my
pojos and get a rule up and running in a couple hours.   Would have been
even faster if I had my coffee this morning.  

 

Next step is to export the rules and deploy them to the Execution
Server.  I like the fact that it can take JSON.  

 

Is there much documentation out there yet on the Execution server?

 

Thanks,

 

Robert Costello

Lead Systems Engineer

IMA Performance

E3- 279A

847.286.0910

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: rules-users-bounces at lists.jboss.org
[mailto:rules-users-bounces at lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Costello,
Robert
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 8:23 AM
To: Rules Users List
Subject: RE: [rules-users] Drools, Grails,and default packages for
domain objects

 

That's good advice.  I tried putting everything in a default package,
including the rules, but still no luck.  

 

For the time being, I'm going to put aside working with rule tables in
spreadsheets and see how they work in Guvnor.  There must be some
subtleties with the spreadsheets that I am not getting yet.  

 

Robert Costello

Lead Systems Engineer

IMA Performance

E3- 279A

847.286.0910

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: rules-users-bounces at lists.jboss.org
[mailto:rules-users-bounces at lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of CK
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 12:11 PM
To: Rules Users List
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Drools, Grails,and default packages for
domain objects

 

If I understand you correctly, this is a Java runtime restriction.  

 

Java classes in the default package can reference any class in a named
package.  Other the other hand, classes in a named package cannot
reference any class in a default package.  Classes in a default package
can reference other classes in a default package.

 

Thus, the easiest way normally to deal with this problem is to either
(1) put everything in a named package, including any grails
classes/domain objects/etc or (2) put everything in a default package.
I'd suggest that you go with option 1 because it'll give you fewer
problems.

 

But I'm not sure if that's the question you're asking or if this helps
you.  Hopefully, it does. :)

 

 

On Jan 20, 2009, at 6:00 AM, Costello, Robert wrote:

 

I'm using the latest as of this date, which is 5.0.0M4

 

Thanks!

 

Robert Costello

Lead Systems Engineer

IMA Performance

E3- 279A

847.286.0910

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: rules-users-bounces at lists.jboss.org
[mailto:rules-users-bounces at lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Edson Tirelli
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2009 3:59 PM
To: Rules Users List
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Drools, Grails,and default packages for
domain objects

 


   Robert,

   What version of Drools are you using?
   I remember seeing something about this in the past... I will search
JIRAs to see if we have any ticket open for 5.0.

   []s
   Edson

2009/1/19 Costello, Robert <rcost10 at searshc.com>

Has anyone else run into issues trying to reference objects in a default
package?  I'm trying to use Drools with Grails and my rule which
compiled nicely in a package setting has issues when faced with a
default package. 

 

The error is "foo" cannot be resolved to a type

 

I've tried putting the rule both in the default package and putting it
in a named package, and neither seem to work.   If I put my objects back
into packages, everything is fine.

 

Any  advice?

 

Thanks,

 

Robert Costello

 

 


_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users at lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users




-- 
 Edson Tirelli
 JBoss Drools Core Development
 JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com

_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users at lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-users/attachments/20090121/793b0a6a/attachment.html