Re: [rules-users] The update function inside a rule
Okay, understood, thanks for your explanations ! I hope the timer function will be fix in the next official release (I know, I don't need it in the sample, but for others, more complex, rules...) -- View this message in context: http://drools-java-rules-engine.46999.n3.nabble.com/The-update-function-inside-a-rule-tp2747484p2762902.html Sent from the Drools - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] The update function inside a rule
There might be some conceptual problem going on here. Calling a ruleset with just (one of- those rules would indeed not produce the desired results (leaving the timer aside). Here is what happens: 1) The rule matches because endtime currenttime 2) Rule is put on agenda 3) As the only rule in the agenda, it is executed and sets the endtime to a couple of seconds in the future 4) WM is updated and rules are re-evaluated 5) No more matching rules because endtime currenttime 6) Rule execution stops I do not know exactly what Marc is doing, but I assume he is trying to keep the engine alive by calling fireAllrules time after time. Part of the problem may be lying here. Could you show us the all parts of your code where you have fireAllRules() coded? Additionally, we can be hoping, but the issue with the timer will probably remain. Did you try to System.out the values of endtime and currenttime after each rule execution? Regards, Frank Wolfgang Laun-2 wrote: On 29 March 2011 19:04, marc lt;marc.stra...@gmail.comgt; wrote: gt; Thanks, gt; The JBRULES-2825 seems to be a similar issue indeed ! gt; gt; The timer is necessary: When change the value of SimpleClock and I only do gt; an update (obj), without calling fireAllRules(). That way the rule doesn't gt; fire... Is-it an other problem ?? gt; gt; If I do a update + fireAllRulles() when I change the timer, the rule_b fire gt; fine every 10 seconds. (without timer in the rule..) gt; gt; Sorry, but I do not understand what you mean by any of these two scenarios. -W gt; gt; I think there is an open JIRA for a very similar issue: gt; gt; JBRULES-2825 amp;quot;rule with timer and CE not keeps firing after turning gt; falseamp;quot; gt; gt; I have added these two rules as a comment. gt; gt; However, the timer isn't necessary in this here case. Since the SimpleClock gt; fact is updated periodically, the engine will fire the rule as soon as gt; dateInMillisec exceeds the clock value in the Message fact. gt; gt; Both rules work correctly, if written without the timer. gt; gt; Actuallay, the timer doesn't have any effect (except wasting a few cycles). gt; If the LHS becomes true, it delays the first firing by 1s, and then the LHS gt; is made false by changing the Message object. This stops the timer! But gt; then, eventually, the LHS becomes true again, and *another timer *is gt; started, delays 1s, fires, and terminates. gt; gt; -W gt; gt; gt; gt; -- gt; View this message in context: gt; http://drools-java-rules-engine.46999.n3.nabble.com/The-update-function-inside-a-rule-tp2747484p2749346.html gt; Sent from the Drools - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. gt; ___ gt; rules-users mailing list gt; rules-users@lists.jboss.org gt; https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users gt; ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users -- View this message in context: http://drools-java-rules-engine.46999.n3.nabble.com/The-update-function-inside-a-rule-tp2747484p2752845.html Sent from the Drools - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] The update function inside a rule
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 rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] The update function inside a rule
On 30 March 2011 12:47, marc marc.stra...@gmail.com wrote: 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). If there are no timers, fireAllRules() terminates as soon as all pending activations have been fired. Changing a fact later on will create activations, but not fire rules. 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 ? Another known problem, I think. I don't see anything like that while using a (my) build from a developer baaseline about 6 weeks ago. 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) Sorry, but your way of expressing yourself beats me again. -W 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 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
Re: [rules-users] The update function inside a rule
Not entirely, Wolfgang could probably explain this a lot better than me, but I will give it a try. 1) Rule execution stops -or it should stop- as soon as there are no more rules with conditions that are true. Therefor, the rules should only be executed once. 2) You would not need your timer because the only thing it does, is to slow down rule execution 1 sec. And, as wolfgang pointed out, the timer stops, or should stop, once the condition becomes false. Now, in your case, it appears the only job the timer does, is to keep the session alive, which appears to be a bug. What you need, is not a timer. You need something to keep your session alive during the time your conditions are false. Preferably something that is not buggy. This could be achieved by f.e. fireUntilHalt(), or whatever intelligent design you can come up with. 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) If you rpint the value that is evaluated in the condition, that should be the value drools sees... But I am not an expert in JVM, so I could be wrong. Regards, Frank marc wrote: 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-tp2747484p2753173.html Sent from the Drools - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] The update function inside a rule
Upgrade to 5.2M1 and the CPU overuse problem goes away. --- On Wed, 3/30/11, marc marc.stra...@gmail.com wrote: From: marc marc.stra...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [rules-users] The update function inside a rule To: rules-users@lists.jboss.org 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 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
Re: [rules-users] The update function inside a rule
Hi Marc, Your rules do not immediately reveal anything remarkable to me, so I do not have an explanation or solution just yet. Here is what I would do to narrow down on the problem: Add an output in your rules that print the internal end date and the current date in each RHS of the rules. It is unlikely that the WM is not updated at all, that would cause internalEndDate to remain unchanged and rules wouldn't be fired anymore. Regards, Frank Marc Strabin wrote: Hello, I've 2 rules which should be similar but the result is different and I can't understand why : I insert an object Message() into drools with the following rule : rule quot;rule_aquot; timer (int:1s 1s) when SimpleClock ( d : dateInMillisec != 0 ) // SimpleClock give the current time (set by a java timer and an update) m : Message ( internalEndDate lt; d ) then System.out.println( quot;rule aquot;); m.setInternalEndDate (d + 1); * retract (m);* * insert (m);* end gt; the result is fine : a message every 10. If I replace the rule_a by the rule_b : (because an update should be better than an retract/insert I guess) rule quot;rule_bquot; timer (int:1s 1s) when SimpleClock ( d : dateInMillisec != 0 ) // Simple slock give the current time (set by a java timer and an update) m : Message ( internalEndDate lt; d ) then System.out.println( quot;rule bquot;); m.setInternalEndDate (d + 1); * update (m);* end gt; the result is bad : a message every 1 second. It act as if the attibute message.internalEndDate wasn't updated in the drools engine. Could someone explain me if/why this behaviour is normal ? Thanks in advance Marc ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users -- View this message in context: http://drools-java-rules-engine.46999.n3.nabble.com/The-update-function-inside-a-rule-tp2747484p2747740.html Sent from the Drools - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] The update function inside a rule
I'm sorry, that didn't make any sense. An un-updated internal enddate would indeed cause the LHS condition to remain true, and the timer will cause it to fire each second. My bad... FrankVhh wrote: Hi Marc, Your rules do not immediately reveal anything remarkable to me, so I do not have an explanation or solution just yet. Here is what I would do to narrow down on the problem: Add an output in your rules that print the internal end date and the current date in each RHS of the rules. It is unlikely that the WM is not updated at all, that would cause internalEndDate to remain unchanged and rules wouldn't be fired anymore. Regards, Frank Marc Strabin wrote: Hello, I've 2 rules which should be similar but the result is different and I can't understand why : I insert an object Message() into drools with the following rule : rule quot;rule_aquot; timer (int:1s 1s) when SimpleClock ( d : dateInMillisec != 0 ) // SimpleClock give the current time (set by a java timer and an update) m : Message ( internalEndDate lt; d ) then System.out.println( quot;rule aquot;); m.setInternalEndDate (d + 1); * retract (m);* * insert (m);* end gt; the result is fine : a message every 10. If I replace the rule_a by the rule_b : (because an update should be better than an retract/insert I guess) rule quot;rule_bquot; timer (int:1s 1s) when SimpleClock ( d : dateInMillisec != 0 ) // Simple slock give the current time (set by a java timer and an update) m : Message ( internalEndDate lt; d ) then System.out.println( quot;rule bquot;); m.setInternalEndDate (d + 1); * update (m);* end gt; the result is bad : a message every 1 second. It act as if the attibute message.internalEndDate wasn't updated in the drools engine. Could someone explain me if/why this behaviour is normal ? Thanks in advance Marc ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users -- View this message in context: http://drools-java-rules-engine.46999.n3.nabble.com/The-update-function-inside-a-rule-tp2747484p2747755.html Sent from the Drools - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] The update function inside a rule
I think there is an open JIRA for a very similar issue: JBRULES-2825 rule with timer and CE not keeps firing after turning false I have added these two rules as a comment. However, the timer isn't necessary in this here case. Since the SimpleClock fact is updated periodically, the engine will fire the rule as soon as dateInMillisec exceeds the clock value in the Message fact. Both rules work correctly, if written without the timer. Actuallay, the timer doesn't have any effect (except wasting a few cycles). If the LHS becomes true, it delays the first firing by 1s, and then the LHS is made false by changing the Message object. This stops the timer! But then, eventually, the LHS becomes true again, and *another timer *is started, delays 1s, fires, and terminates. -W 2011/3/29 Marc Strabin marc.stra...@gmail.com: Hello, I've 2 rules which should be similar but the result is different and I can't understand why : I insert an object Message() into drools with the following rule : rule rule_a timer (int:1s 1s) when SimpleClock ( d : dateInMillisec != 0 ) // SimpleClock give the current time (set by a java timer and an update) m : Message ( internalEndDate d ) then System.out.println( rule a); m.setInternalEndDate (d + 1); retract (m); insert (m); end the result is fine : a message every 10. If I replace the rule_a by the rule_b : (because an update should be better than an retract/insert I guess) rule rule_b timer (int:1s 1s) when SimpleClock ( d : dateInMillisec != 0 ) // Simple slock give the current time (set by a java timer and an update) m : Message ( internalEndDate d ) then System.out.println( rule b); m.setInternalEndDate (d + 1); update (m); end the result is bad : a message every 1 second. It act as if the attibute message.internalEndDate wasn't updated in the drools engine. Could someone explain me if/why this behaviour is normal ? Thanks in advance Marc ___ 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
Re: [rules-users] The update function inside a rule
Thanks, The JBRULES-2825 seems to be a similar issue indeed ! The timer is necessary: When change the value of SimpleClock and I only do an update (obj), without calling fireAllRules(). That way the rule doesn't fire... Is-it an other problem ?? If I do a update + fireAllRulles() when I change the timer, the rule_b fire fine every 10 seconds. (without timer in the rule..) I think there is an open JIRA for a very similar issue: JBRULES-2825 quot;rule with timer and CE not keeps firing after turning falsequot; I have added these two rules as a comment. However, the timer isn't necessary in this here case. Since the SimpleClock fact is updated periodically, the engine will fire the rule as soon as dateInMillisec exceeds the clock value in the Message fact. Both rules work correctly, if written without the timer. Actuallay, the timer doesn't have any effect (except wasting a few cycles). If the LHS becomes true, it delays the first firing by 1s, and then the LHS is made false by changing the Message object. This stops the timer! But then, eventually, the LHS becomes true again, and *another timer *is started, delays 1s, fires, and terminates. -W -- View this message in context: http://drools-java-rules-engine.46999.n3.nabble.com/The-update-function-inside-a-rule-tp2747484p2749346.html Sent from the Drools - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] The update function inside a rule
On 29 March 2011 19:04, marc marc.stra...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks, The JBRULES-2825 seems to be a similar issue indeed ! The timer is necessary: When change the value of SimpleClock and I only do an update (obj), without calling fireAllRules(). That way the rule doesn't fire... Is-it an other problem ?? If I do a update + fireAllRulles() when I change the timer, the rule_b fire fine every 10 seconds. (without timer in the rule..) Sorry, but I do not understand what you mean by any of these two scenarios. -W I think there is an open JIRA for a very similar issue: JBRULES-2825 quot;rule with timer and CE not keeps firing after turning falsequot; I have added these two rules as a comment. However, the timer isn't necessary in this here case. Since the SimpleClock fact is updated periodically, the engine will fire the rule as soon as dateInMillisec exceeds the clock value in the Message fact. Both rules work correctly, if written without the timer. Actuallay, the timer doesn't have any effect (except wasting a few cycles). If the LHS becomes true, it delays the first firing by 1s, and then the LHS is made false by changing the Message object. This stops the timer! But then, eventually, the LHS becomes true again, and *another timer *is started, delays 1s, fires, and terminates. -W -- View this message in context: http://drools-java-rules-engine.46999.n3.nabble.com/The-update-function-inside-a-rule-tp2747484p2749346.html Sent from the Drools - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ 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
