Terry,
As I know this very alike as the drools implementation to
resolve this so teorically this is not necesary as you set the right
configuration on drools.
You can use System.identityHashCode(obj) to compare to instances
of the same object, so the rule can be like
this:
rule "
Terry,
A bad commit from my part.
It shall work now.
Regards,
Edson
2007/4/16, Terry Laurenzo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
The following issue (737) was marked as closed, but in the current
SVN the affected code is commented out -- once again rendering Groovy
fact classes inoperable. Can
This may be a silly question, but I had taken the non-self-joining
nature of Drools for granted. Aside from disabling the option in
RuleBaseConfiguration, how would one write a rule that would not self-
join (ie. the old behavior)?
(Say I wanted two different facts to match:
when
The following issue (737) was marked as closed, but in the current
SVN the affected code is commented out -- once again rendering Groovy
fact classes inoperable. Can anyone explain why the patch was backed
out? If not, could we reopen JBRULES-737 as a regression or
uncomment the check for
