We have this fixed now. Hopefully this will be in the nightly build, and available for testing tomorrow. I’ll ping with a link to the nightly builds once it’s available.
Mark On 31 Mar 2014, at 14:34, Mark Proctor <mproc...@codehaus.org> wrote: > We are still working on this, we’ve found a number of related points, as we > are doing a full audit of the code. We’ll post as soon as we have the fixes > available in a nightly build, so that people can test. > > Mark > On 29 Mar 2014, at 12:50, Mark Proctor <mproc...@codehaus.org> wrote: > >> Mario has found an issue at a sync point, which can happen if it’s trying to >> schedule a timer at the same time that it’s firing that same timer from an >> update. We are trying to resolve that now. See lines 121 and 394, which >> later impacts lines 289 and 330. >> https://github.com/droolsjbpm/drools/blob/master/drools-core/src/main/java/org/drools/core/phreak/PhreakTimerNode.java >> >> Once we have this solved, we should have expected behaviour. Hopefully you >> can try this in the next 6.1 beta, in 2 weeks time. >> >> Mark >> On 29 Mar 2014, at 09:00, Vieri <vieri.emili...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Mark, >>> thanks for your update. >>> I don't know if this can help, but I added a simple AgendaEventListener to >>> the test case and it seems that at some point drools stops matching the >>> "Create event" rule, while facts (well, events) are still inserted and >>> other rules are triggered properly. >>> Vieri >>> >>> >>> >>> On 28 March 2014 16:57, Mark Proctor <mproc...@codehaus.org> wrote: >>> we’ve being auditing the code here, and we’ve found an issue on what >>> happens when a rule is re-matched and the timer updated. Mario is >>> addressing this now, and also re-viewing dropping of output. He’ll post >>> with an update soon. >>> >>> Mark >>> On 25 Mar 2014, at 16:09, Vieri <vieri.emili...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> First of all, thanks for the support. >>>> Mario, I confirm that the case you provided works fine also at my side. >>>> Still, have you tried my first example (using the cron directly to the >>>> counting rule)? Can you confirm it is not working, since this was my first >>>> concern? >>>> As I said in the previous post, using the CronTrigger pattern greatly >>>> improves stability (I managed to run it at 500 eps), but it is not >>>> resolutive. >>>> Adding a few rules, it's enough to go back to instability. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rules-users mailing list >>> rules-users@lists.jboss.org >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Vieri Emiliani >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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
