Mark,
Somebody should definitely take a look at waltz under reteoo. I
started going up the stack of NullPointerException and found several
places on the stack where exception can be thrown. I gave up after
third place where I put if ( != null) { without getting into what is
going on in that part of the code.
-AlexOn 3/12/06, Mark Proctor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > we jarjar asm to prevent collisions with other versions of ASM. for > instance, the previous ASM will not work with the latest one (they have not > made it backwards compatable) - API changes all over the place. It is also a > small library, so its OK to do this (and the licence allows it). It also > means that we can in theory run the runtime (core) with no external > dependencies, once we inline the jarjared ASM. > > asm is used in lots of things - for isntance if anyone was using certain > versions of hibernate, or websphere, if we did not jarjar ASM drools would > simply not work. > > Definately looks like something we can use, should be a more efficient > approach as there is no switching going on (just get the value directly). > I need to have a look at it with jprofiler (with reteoo), but don't want to > get too distracted from the 3.0 beta going out at this time (but I will get > to it). As I know, once I start, I won't be able to stop !! > > Strange that manners isn't faster, as it was showing up at the top of the > list. More research needed I think. > > Thanks though ! Thats pretty cool - looks like exactly what I was thinking ! > Awesome. > > How is leaps going in general? > > ________________________________ > > From: Alexander Bagerman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sun 12/03/2006 6:32 AM > To: Michael Neale > Cc: Mark Proctor > Subject: New ClassFieldExtractor > > > > > > > Mark, Michael, > I just checked in two new files BaseClassFieldExtractor and > ClassFieldExtractorFactory in org.drools.base. > > It uses approach we discussed earlier. It does not affected > performance of Manners test but brought execution for Leaps Waltz test > down to 30% of what it run with previous version of > ClassFieldExtractor. So, 3 times performance improvement for this > case. Waltz does not run under RETEOO (I created Jira entry for it). > > Please check it out and let me know if it something we can use across > the rest of the code. We then need to drop existing > ClassFieldExtractor then. > > The question I have is why do we have our own copy of ASM instead of > the original one? > > Thanks, > -Alex > > On 3/9/06, Michael Neale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Yep, as per our discussions, put design notes in JIRA. > > > > Alex is going to experiment with manners and reteoo, see what the impact > is. > > If its significant, then it is a relatively easy optimisation (probably > take > > me a day). It will mean generating more extractor classes on demand, but > > thats OK. > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Alexander Bagerman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Fri 10/03/2006 6:55 AM > > To: Michael Neale; Mark Proctor > > Subject: ClassFieldExtractor suggestion > > > > > > > > > > Michael, Mark, > > I 've been profiling drools and noticed that one of the areas where we > > can improve is ASM part that extracts field values. > > > > To benchmark it I created "hard coded" versions of > > ClassFieldExtractor's for Waltz example that just do > > casting/getAttribute calls. I attached base class for this > > implementation and one of the samples to this email. I gained 2.5 > > times in terms of the performance with this approach comparing to ASM > > getMethodByIndex. > > > > Michael, would it hard to implement adhoc generation of > > ClassFieldExtractor per my attached sample? > > > > Do you want me to open Jira to track it? > > > > Thanks, > > -Alex > > > >
