tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5869426.post8712291703406587245..comments2024-03-25T09:15:58.430+00:00Comments on Drools & jBPM: Dynamic (non type safe) Expressions in RulesMark Proctorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03304277188725220501noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5869426.post-75070506001738575082011-03-15T18:36:44.302+00:002011-03-15T18:36:44.302+00:00the annotation is at a class level, rather than fi...the annotation is at a class level, rather than field level. So it means any patterns of this object type will have all their expressions evaluated in mvel's non strict mode.<br /><br />Currently we are unable to index these types of constraints. So that's something to be aware off.<br /><br />In the future I'd like to add @typesafe to fields too. So you can have a typesafe class but allow for just one field to be "unsafe".<br /><br />The object field is of type Object. So it's just showing that it's able to do an address constraint without knowing the type at compile time.<br /><br />MarkMark Proctorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03304277188725220501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5869426.post-28357833844703298542011-03-15T17:19:19.356+00:002011-03-15T17:19:19.356+00:00Does @typesafe(false) make the whole declared clas...Does @typesafe(false) make the whole declared class not type-safe or is it a marker for certain fields within a declared class?<br /><br />Furthermore your unit tests show the declared type "Person" having a single "Object" field set to the "Address". Is this a restriction (one untyped field per declared type) or simply that you don't declare other fields in the type?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06581771208570261964noreply@blogger.com