Upgrade to 5.2M1 and the CPU overuse problem goes away. --- On Wed, 3/30/11, marc <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: marc <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [rules-users] The update function inside a rule > To: [email protected] > Date: Wednesday, March 30, 2011, 5:47 AM > I was using only one fireAllRules() > after insert(message) and not > fireUntilHalt(). But is should be enough : as the rule > change & update the > fact, the rule is applied again (10 seconds later, and not > 1second). > > With fireUntilHalt() the rule work fine (and without > timer)... but it burns > the CPU (the java process reach 50% on a bi-proc) while a > simple call to > fireAllRues() after the timer update use nothing... This > doesn't make sense > to me because the drools engine is only notified of a fact > modification only > 1 time per second (the timer update), so it should only > fire all rules a > this moment and that all (just like a fireAllRules() after > the > update(SimpleClock) does), so why does it takes so much CPU > ? I can post the > code but I should open a other thread because it not the > same "problem" ? > > About adding log to trace the values of endDate, the traces > show correct > values. But it doesn't trace the value viewed by the drools > engine itself > wich could be different (just as if I don't do an update() > after a > modification) > > Marc > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://drools-java-rules-engine.46999.n3.nabble.com/The-update-function-inside-a-rule-tp2747484p2753098.html > Sent from the Drools - User mailing list archive at > Nabble.com. > _______________________________________________ > rules-users mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users > _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
