I think Mark Egloff wrote: > > >The idea of creating standard wrappers for various Collections is a > >reasonable one. It won't help people who will want to be able to use > >unwrapped Collection objects, too, but it's a reasonable approach. > > I don't see any other possibilities; otherwise you have to extend the > underlying JVM ;).
Oh, but there are indeed other possiblities; for example, an API that lets you say "this collection in this slot of this fact changed," which you are then required to call whenever a collection is modified. Most rule engine vendors don't do any automated change-tracking at all. > > However, I also think you don't need too many wrappers. Most collection > types are working properly with the Collection Interface, so I suggest > to do the following wrappers: > > - Collection > - Iterator (may be not needed) > - Map I think you'd want List, Map, and Set wrappers (the three core interfaces.) > - Bean Wrapper (works internally with Java Reflection) > How is this last one different from what Jess already does? --------------------------------------------------------- Ernest Friedman-Hill Distributed Systems Research Phone: (925) 294-2154 Sandia National Labs FAX: (925) 294-2234 PO Box 969, MS 9012 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Livermore, CA 94550 http://herzberg.ca.sandia.gov -------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, send the words 'unsubscribe jess-users [EMAIL PROTECTED]' in the BODY of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED], NOT to the list (use your own address!) List problems? Notify [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
