Mark, I did see the MR2 release in your site. we need to use dsl. Is there any change in this release as far as dsl is concerned. we already used version3.0.6 and created all dsl. can we use the rules as it is in the new release especially DSL? Please let me know. Thanks and Regs, Basha
________________________________
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thu 4/12/2007 8:02 PM
To: rules-users@lists.jboss.org
Subject: rules-users Digest, Vol 5, Issue 36
Send rules-users mailing list submissions to
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of rules-users digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Subject: Re: [rules-users] DSL is Dropped? (Mark Proctor)
2. Re: Add/remove objects from working memory are very CPU
intensive (Mark Proctor)
3. Re: Add/remove objects from working memory are very CPU
intensive (Einat Idan)
4. Object in parameter (fakhfakh ismail)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 13:33:42 +0100
From: Mark Proctor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [rules-users] DSL is Dropped?
To: Rules Users List <rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
M3, so it won't be in this upcoming release, but the one after. there
will be partial DSL support in M2, at the engine level, but not at the
IDE level.
Mark
Sikkandar Nawabjan wrote:
> Mark,
> I did see your reply on one of the question that DSL is not enable for
> M1. In which version it will be enable. we plan to use milestone.
> Is it going to be enable or DSL feature going to be removed?
> Thanks and Regs,
> Basha
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users@lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-users/attachments/20070412/0075c6cb/attachment-0001.html
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 13:34:52 +0100
From: Mark Proctor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Add/remove objects from working memory are
very CPU intensive
To: Rules Users List <rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
I'm just finalising the last bit, so any day now. with any luck over the
weekend or monday.
Mark
Einat Idan wrote:
> Michael,
> Thanks for your reply.
>
> When is the next milestone expected?
>
> On 4/12/07, *Michael Neale* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
>
> definately upgrade to latest 3.0.x version (3.0.6).
>
> Also, those methods are were most of the work happens, its a
> common misconception that all the work happens lazily when you
> call "fire all rules" but that is not the case, as you assert each
> object, it propagates through the RETE network, so that is normal
> to see the time spent there for lots of data.
>
> you can also try the trunk version if you like, its certainly got
> some improvements, but the next milestone (if you can wait) will
> be more worth your time.
>
> Michael.
>
> On 4/12/07, *Einat Idan* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I encountered a serious performance problem using Jboss Rules
> 3.0.1. The process was executed on a pretty strong machine - a
> DL350 4 cpu RedHat machine. The process was using about 100%
> CPU and I used a profiler to see what's going on:
>
> My application adds/removes objects to/from the working memory
> of a stateful rule session quite intensively (2000-3000 per
> sec), though the intensive actions were related to a single
> rule session and only a few extra rule sessions existed
> simultaneously. It turned out that about 7-10% of CPU was
> consumed per a single add/remove operation. More specifically,
> ReteooWorkingMemory.doRetract() and
> ReteooWorkingMemory.doAssertObject() were the major consumers.
> I would expect a basic operation like this to be significantly
> less CPU intensive.
>
> Would you please provide more information, is my benchmark too
> ambitious? Do you recommend an upgrade to version 3.0.6? 3.1?
> If so, please elaborate what were the performance improvements.
>
> Best regards,
> Einat Idan
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users@lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users@lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users@lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-users/attachments/20070412/a706a02f/attachment-0001.html
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 16:01:56 +0300
From: "Einat Idan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Add/remove objects from working memory are
very CPU intensive
To: "Rules Users List" <rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hi Mark,
Thanks, these is good news!
My product is planned to be GA in 4-5 months. When do you recommend shifting
from 3.0.1 (that's the version I currently use) to 3.1? When do you expect
3.1 to be a stable version?
Best regards,
Einat
On 4/12/07, Mark Proctor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm just finalising the last bit, so any day now. with any luck over the
> weekend or monday.
>
> Mark
> Einat Idan wrote:
>
> Michael,
> Thanks for your reply.
>
> When is the next milestone expected?
>
> On 4/12/07, Michael Neale <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
> >
> > definately upgrade to latest 3.0.x version (3.0.6).
> >
> > Also, those methods are were most of the work happens, its a common
> > misconception that all the work happens lazily when you call "fire all
> > rules" but that is not the case, as you assert each object, it propagates
> > through the RETE network, so that is normal to see the time spent there for
> > lots of data.
> >
> > you can also try the trunk version if you like, its certainly got some
> > improvements, but the next milestone (if you can wait) will be more worth
> > your time.
> >
> > Michael.
> >
> > On 4/12/07, Einat Idan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I encountered a serious performance problem using Jboss Rules 3.0.1.
> > > The process was executed on a pretty strong machine - a DL350 4 cpu RedHat
> > > machine. The process was using about 100% CPU and I used a profiler to see
> > > what's going on:
> > >
> > > My application adds/removes objects to/from the working memory of a
> > > stateful rule session quite intensively (2000-3000 per sec), though the
> > > intensive actions were related to a single rule session and only a few
> > > extra
> > > rule sessions existed simultaneously. It turned out that about 7-10% of
> > > CPU
> > > was consumed per a single add/remove operation. More specifically,
> > > ReteooWorkingMemory.doRetract() and ReteooWorkingMemory.doAssertObject()
> > > were the major consumers. I would expect a basic operation like this to be
> > > significantly less CPU intensive.
> > >
> > > Would you please provide more information, is my benchmark too
> > > ambitious? Do you recommend an upgrade to version 3.0.6? 3.1? If so,
> > > please elaborate what were the performance improvements.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Einat Idan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > rules-users mailing list
> > > rules-users@lists.jboss.org
> > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> > >
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rules-users mailing list
> > rules-users@lists.jboss.org
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> >
> >
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users@lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-users/attachments/20070412/2dcacdc0/attachment-0001.html
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 16:31:22 +0200 (CEST)
From: fakhfakh ismail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [rules-users] Object in parameter
To: rules-users@lists.jboss.org
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hello,
First sorry for my bad English
when I execute this rule an error is affiched.
when
user1: BnUserValue(name : name)
and
ActiviteOut : BnNodeValue()
and
lien: BnEdgeValue(id : id, OutBnNode : OutBnNode)
then
System.out.println("oui ça marche");
end
the problem is when I remove the object OutBnNode : OutBnNode the parameter
there's not error I want to is this error exist because I can't set
parameter with type not String, Integer, Date, ....
Best regard
---------------------------------
Découvrez une nouvelle façon d'obtenir des réponses à toutes vos questions !
Profitez des connaissances, des opinions et des expériences des internautes sur
Yahoo! Questions/Réponses.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-users/attachments/20070412/a712bf05/attachment.html
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
End of rules-users Digest, Vol 5, Issue 36
******************************************
<<winmail.dat>>
_______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
