Thanks guys, this could be a workable option. Will do some experimentation.
Thanks!
--
View this message in context:
http://drools-java-rules-engine.46999.n3.nabble.com/case-in-sensitive-string-comparison-tp1842677p1843097.html
Sent from the Drools - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
If (re)writing the rules to replace String "==" and "!=" with a custom op
for String eq and ne is an option, then it's simple to provide this
operator.
The link is http://members.inode.at/w.laun/drools/CustomOperatorHowTo.html
-W
2010/11/4 Michael Anstis
> You could look at using your own cust
You could look at using your own custom operator.
Wolfgang Laun linked to an article of his recently explaining the approach.
I'm not sure if custom operators however allow for indexing in the RETE
network and therefore whether they're any faster than eval.
Wolfgang, Edson, can you advise in you
We have a requirement to display data as stored (with the right casing) but
for evaluation purposes strings should be compared case in-sensitive. We
have several hundred rules touching these particular strings and would
really like to avoid doing eval( x != null && x.equalsIngoreCase(y) )
everywhe