[rules-users] problems using rule flow
When I use my rule flow with only one asserted fact it work very well, but when I assert more than one fact it goes wrong. I used the Audit View to fix the problem. My rule flow : Start - ruleFlowGroup1 - split - ruleFlowGroup2 - join When I edit my split node I have this : To node ruleFlowGroup2 : constraint To node join : constraint For the node join constraint I specified something like : myFact(state==myFact.state1) And when a fact with state==myFact.state1 is inserted the split node constraint are true for the others facts even if their states are different from myFact.state. I'm also updating my fact in all the rules. So my question is, how can I say to the split node to consider the fact outgoing from the ruleFlowGroup1 and not a fact in the working memory Thanks Any help pls ? -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/problems-using-rule-flow-tf4128169.html#a11739566 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] Re: BRMS Server - memory Issue while execution - Critical
Michael Neale michael.neale at gmail.com writes: Hi Arjun - I wouldn't recommend re-using session unless there is some expensive state you wish to reuse. Pooling them will use up far more resources then freeing them. You should only pool expensive to obtain resources. Hi Michael, thanks a lot for your help. I wish to share something that might be news: Well I tried two models: 1. Create a new stateless session, everytime you recieve a request 2. Share the same session among multiple threads. (Million Loops, Zero ramp up time - JMeter settings) .. As I increased the number of threads the performance output for 1 dipped around. But for 2 there was a minor exponential increase in performance. Ofcourse, this depends on the rules and the way the business obejcts are also written. But this was m personal experience. Functionally there was no difference and also no memory leaks in the latest build. I'm pretty happy. Thanks, Arjun ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] JBossRules and JAVA Servlet / JSP (part2)
Hi Burr, That would be very kind from you, if you could send me the WAR, Thank you, ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] JBossRules and JAVA Servlet / JSP (part2)
Hi spilirit, Try copy all your dependencies to the WebContent/WEB-INF/lib instead referring in your project. The Eclipse IDE will automatically add these libs to your classpath and to your exported war. Regards Fernando Meyer http://fmeyer.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP: 0xD804DDFB On Jul 23, 2007, at 5:33 AM, spilirit wrote: Hi, please find attached a copy of my Eclipse project, Thank you for your HelpTest.zip___ 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] ConcurrentModificationException in Drools...
Hi, I am getting the following error when I try to run the rules in bulk(EG: 5 or 6 rules together). But when I start running the rules individually, all the rules are working fine. 0060 SystemErr R org.drools.spi.ConsequenceException: java.util.ConcurrentModificationException Anyone have any idea about it? Thanks, McShiv... -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/ConcurrentModificationException-in-Drools...-tf4128586.html#a11740571 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] Decision Table does not support Agenda Groups
Hi, I reported this earlier also, I cant understand why do we not provide AGENDA- Group support for Decision tables, while we do provide Activation? See DefaultRuleSheetListener. I need to do two things: 1. Support sequencing of rule groups 2. allow two modes: a. Execute all rules, b. Break on first rule 1 -- Solution: Agenda groups :o( -- NOT SUPPORTED in decision table 2 -- Solution: Activation Group: :o) .. is there any reason for not supporting Agenda Groups in D.Tables regards, Arjun ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
[rules-users] Few rules, many facts
I am working on a drools application with few rules and large number of facts. In my first design I tried to avoid excessive joins thinking I was helping improve performance but didnt realized that I was actually shooting myself in the foot. I was basically creating a single facade-fact that would contain two or three diff concerns joined under the same interface. The problem I am seeing is that for simple things like changing the status of one of many facts would cause that fact to be reevaluated against all the other facts. I then realized that thinking relationally about the problem would not only simplify my solution but also probably make a lot faster. However, in this new and relational solution I will need to make use of many not CE. My question is: is there any cost in using nots that I should be awae of? Any other words of wisdom re: improving the performance in small rules x many facts? thanks, -- yuri ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] The effect of not using shadow facts
Anthony, If you have a choice on your binding framework, I might suggesting switching to Castor. I had the same problem you experienced and switched to Castor and it worked like a champ. Ron On 7/23/07, trandinh tho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I got same problem to Chris's. Java classes are generated from XML schema (using XMLBean). And the problem occurs when I try to assert objects of those classes into working memory. The exception is: java.lang.VerifyError: class b2BContext.impl.UserImplShadowProxy overrides final method hashCode.()I at java.lang.ClassLoader.defineClass1(Native Method) at java.lang.ClassLoader.defineClass(ClassLoader.java:620) at java.lang.ClassLoader.defineClass(ClassLoader.java:465) at org.drools.rule.MapBackedClassLoader.fastFindClass(MapBackedClassLoader.java:40) at org.drools.rule.MapBackedClassLoader.loadClass(MapBackedClassLoader.java:59) at java.lang.ClassLoader.loadClass(ClassLoader.java:251) at org.drools.reteoo.Rete$ObjectTypeConf.init(Rete.java:352) at org.drools.reteoo.Rete.assertObject(Rete.java:152) at org.drools.reteoo.ReteooRuleBase.assertObject(ReteooRuleBase.java:190) at org.drools.reteoo.ReteooWorkingMemory.doInsert(ReteooWorkingMemory.java:70) at org.drools.common.AbstractWorkingMemory.insert(AbstractWorkingMemory.java:772) at org.drools.common.AbstractWorkingMemory.insert(AbstractWorkingMemory.java:584) at org.drools.jsr94.rules.StatefulRuleSessionImpl.addObject(StatefulRuleSessionImpl.java:162) at org.drools.jsr94.rules.StatefulRuleSessionImpl.addObjects(StatefulRuleSessionImpl.java:185) I am new to JBoss Rule, so may you show me how to disable Shadow. Please help. Thanks, Anthony. Edson Tirelli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chris, I know why it happens, but I don't know what to do. Basically, we need to do a shallow clone of any collections asserted to the working memory to ensure integrity. So, what I try to do is: * Check if the collection is cloneable. If it is, use clone method. * Else, check if the collection has a default no-arg constructor. If so, create a new instance and use addAll() method to add all previous elements. * Otherwise, use objenesis to instantiate object without calling the constructor. What is happening in your case, as you don't have a default constructor and apparently is not cloneable, it is falling to the 3rd alternative above, and as you are extending a java.util.Collection class, it is raising the NPE because it is not executing the class constructor. Not sure about how to handle such scenario since we don't get such exception until it is too late to rollback. []s Edson 2007/7/20, Chris West [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Edson, It appears that revision #13637 of drools breaks the ability for me to use one of my existing classes. The attached eclipse project illustrates the problem. This test works on 4.0.0MR3, but not revision #13637. The exception is: org.drools.spi.ConsequenceException: org.drools.RuntimeDroolsException: Error creating shadow fact for object: NamedList(Hello List): [1, 2, 3] at org.drools.common.DefaultAgenda.fireActivation(DefaultAgenda.java :549) at org.drools.common.DefaultAgenda.fireNextItem(DefaultAgenda.java:509) at org.drools.common.AbstractWorkingMemory.fireAllRules(AbstractWorkingMemory.java:430) at org.drools.common.AbstractWorkingMemory.fireAllRules (AbstractWorkingMemory.java:392) at com.sample.DroolsTest.main(DroolsTest.java:29) Caused by: org.drools.RuntimeDroolsException: Error creating shadow fact for object: NamedList(Hello List): [1, 2, 3] at org.drools.reteoo.Rete$ObjectTypeConf.getShadow(Rete.java:458) at org.drools.reteoo.Rete.assertObject(Rete.java:157) at org.drools.reteoo.ReteooRuleBase.assertObject(ReteooRuleBase.java:190) at org.drools.reteoo.ReteooWorkingMemory.doInsert (ReteooWorkingMemory.java:70) at org.drools.common.AbstractWorkingMemory.insert(AbstractWorkingMemory.java:848) at org.drools.common.AbstractWorkingMemory.insert(AbstractWorkingMemory.java:822) at org.drools.base.DefaultKnowledgeHelper.insert (DefaultKnowledgeHelper.java:60) at org.drools.base.DefaultKnowledgeHelper.insert(DefaultKnowledgeHelper.java:54) at com.sample.Rule_Insert_named_list_0.consequence(Rule_Insert_named_list_0.java:7) at com.sample.Rule_Insert_named_list_0ConsequenceInvoker.evaluate(Rule_Insert_named_list_0ConsequenceInvoker.java:19) at org.drools.common.DefaultAgenda.fireActivation(DefaultAgenda.java:545) ... 4 more Caused by: java.lang.NullPointerException at java.util.ArrayList.ensureCapacity(ArrayList.java:163) at java.util.ArrayList.addAll(ArrayList.java:475) at com.sample.NamedListShadowProxy.updateProxy(Unknown Source) at com.sample.NamedListShadowProxy.setShadowedObject(Unknown Source) at
[rules-users] Re: ConcurrentModificationException in Drools...
Just info, I ran a test on about a million requests (loop) and 50 threads. approx 6 business Obectts and 15 rules. I did get any concurrent modfication issues on JBoss Rules 4. Can you please post the rule scripts/DRL used regards, Arjun Sorry Typo. I was saying is I did not get any concurrent exception. I'm using a stateless session in JBoss rules 4. I tried this on SynchronizedWorkingMemory in 3 also and did not get any problem. regads, Arjun ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
