Another Drools reference
by Wolfgang Laun
The Drools Development Team is devotedly nursing Drools, providing the
essential platform for my article, and the Drools Community has helped me to
collect material for it. Therefore, I think it is only proper to inform you
all that - provided you can read German - you can peruse a copy of the
article Regelbasiertes Programmieren in der
Bahntechnik<http://members.inode.at/w.laun/articles/Signal+Draht.html>(Rule
Based Programming for Railway Applications), featuring Drools on my
home page.
Kind Regards
Wolfgang
14 years, 3 months
Re: [rules-dev] FYI: Performance degradation from 5.0.1 to 5.1.0
by Greg Barton
It appears that 5.0.1 has a slight edge. At 1024M heap 5.1.0 OOMEs at test size 85k (190k total objects, with half matched to the other half) while 5.0.1 can handle it...barely. It OOMEs at 86k. :)
GreG
On Sep 2, 2010, at 22:33, Michael Neale <michael.neale(a)gmail.com> wrote:
would be interesting to see memory usage as well. I know its the poor red headed cousin to execution time performance, but it still matters !
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Greg Barton <greg_barton(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
I've observed a sizable (25%) performance degradation between the 5.0.1 and 5.1.0 releases. I've attached a sample project that tests the performance of matching nested objects. (ANd compares direct reference matching and the performance pitfalls of "from," but that's beside the current point.)
If you switch the pom.xml from using 5.0.1 to 5.1.0 for the drools dependencies you'll see 25% longer execution times on the tests. (mvn test)
Here's the test output:
5.0.1
reference.drl Count: 2000
reference.drl Time: 267ms
reference.drl Time per element: 0.1335ms
BAR Duplicates: 780
FOO Duplicates: 880
reference.drl Count: 20000
reference.drl Time: 1249ms
reference.drl Time per element: 0.06245ms
BAR Duplicates: 7702
FOO Duplicates: 8040
from.drl Count: 200
from.drl Time: 1139ms
from.drl Time per element: 5.695ms
BAR Duplicates: 112
FOO Duplicates: 102
reference.drl Count: 200
reference.drl Time: 5ms
reference.drl Time per element: 0.025ms
BAR Duplicates: 86
FOO Duplicates: 60
5.1.0
reference.drl Count: 2000
reference.drl Time: 300ms
reference.drl Time per element: 0.15ms
BAR Duplicates: 788
FOO Duplicates: 820
reference.drl Count: 20000
reference.drl Time: 1564ms
reference.drl Time per element: 0.0782ms
BAR Duplicates: 8142
FOO Duplicates: 7960
from.drl Count: 200
from.drl Time: 3543ms
from.drl Time per element: 17.715ms
BAR Duplicates: 68
FOO Duplicates: 90
reference.drl Count: 200
reference.drl Time: 13ms
reference.drl Time per element: 0.065ms
BAR Duplicates: 84
FOO Duplicates: 74
On the most taxing test (20k objects) 5.0.1 took 1249ms while 5.1.0 took 1564ms, and for larger tests the effect is more pronounced. This is primarily a test of == on object references.
GreG
_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
--
Michael D Neale
home: www.michaelneale.net
blog: michaelneale.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
14 years, 3 months
Re: [rules-dev] FYI: Performance degradation from 5.0.1 to 5.1.0
by Greg Barton
Oops! It's attached, and https://jira.jboss.org/browse/JBRULES-2685
Sorry about not getting to this until after the release. I only recently (like, yesterday) got back to hacking after work hours after a multiple month hiatus.
--- On Thu, 9/2/10, Mark Proctor <mproctor(a)codehaus.org> wrote:
From: Mark Proctor <mproctor(a)codehaus.org>
Subject: Re: [rules-dev] FYI: Performance degradation from 5.0.1 to 5.1.0
To: rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
Date: Thursday, September 2, 2010, 9:51 PM
I think the attachment is missing, maybe use jira and attach it
there?
Mark
On 03/09/2010 03:46, Greg Barton wrote:
I've observed a
sizable (25%) performance degradation between the 5.0.1
and 5.1.0 releases. I've attached a sample project that
tests the performance of matching nested objects. (ANd
compares direct reference matching and the performance
pitfalls of "from," but that's beside the current point.)
If you switch the pom.xml from using 5.0.1 to 5.1.0
for the drools dependencies you'll see 25% longer
execution times on the tests. (mvn test)
Here's the test output:
5.0.1
reference.drl Count: 2000
reference.drl Time: 267ms
reference.drl Time per element: 0.1335ms
BAR Duplicates: 780
FOO Duplicates: 880
reference.drl Count: 20000
reference.drl Time: 1249ms
reference.drl Time per element: 0.06245ms
BAR Duplicates: 7702
FOO Duplicates: 8040
from.drl Count: 200
from.drl Time: 1139ms
from.drl Time per element: 5.695ms
BAR Duplicates: 112
FOO Duplicates: 102
reference.drl Count: 200
reference.drl Time: 5ms
reference.drl Time per element: 0.025ms
BAR Duplicates: 86
FOO Duplicates: 60
5.1.0
reference.drl Count: 2000
reference.drl Time: 300ms
reference.drl Time per element: 0.15ms
BAR Duplicates: 788
FOO Duplicates: 820
reference.drl Count: 20000
reference.drl Time: 1564ms
reference.drl Time per element: 0.0782ms
BAR Duplicates: 8142
FOO Duplicates: 7960
from.drl Count: 200
from.drl Time: 3543ms
from.drl Time per element: 17.715ms
BAR Duplicates: 68
FOO Duplicates: 90
reference.drl Count: 200
reference.drl Time: 13ms
reference.drl Time per element: 0.065ms
BAR Duplicates: 84
FOO Duplicates: 74
On the most taxing test (20k objects) 5.0.1
took 1249ms while 5.1.0 took 1564ms, and for larger
tests the effect is more pronounced. This is primarily
a test of == on object references.
GreG
_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
14 years, 3 months
Re: [rules-dev] [rules-users] copyright violation issue on Drools
by Greg Barton
See http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
"5. Submission of Contributions. Unless You explicitly state otherwise, any Contribution intentionally submitted for inclusion in the Work by You to the Licensor shall be under the terms and conditions of this License, without any additional terms or conditions. Notwithstanding the above, nothing herein shall supersede or modify the terms of any separate license agreement you may have executed with Licensor regarding such Contributions."
Did you, at the time of submission, have a separate agreement? In writing? Signed by all parties?
GreG
On Aug 31, 2010, at 20:50, 山本 裕介 <yamamoyu(a)gmail.com> wrote:
At the time of your contributions to Drools and other projects you were a Red Hat employee. The Red Hat legal department has determined that it has the right to copy, modify and distribute your contributions under the Apache License version 2.0 and considers this matter closed.
Richard didn't explain that.
I didn't use Red Hat time to fix those bugs, translate message resources. I believe that "I am/was a Red Hat employee" doesn't matter. I'm not paid for the task.
"At the time the code was contributed in good faith under the Apache license, you cannot then decide at a later date to change your mind."
My understanding is that people just do not want to undone their contributions usually. That is how OSS works.
Technically the copyright holder of translated message resources, program codes is the originator.
I agreed to distribute my work under the ASL, but I didn't tell that I willingly give away the copyright to the project.
Anybody who originates their work (i.e. the copyright holder) should be able to decide the license at a later date.
Richard, any comment?
On Sep 1, 2010, at 8:27 AM, Michael Neale wrote:
So is the reason that there is a dispute over another copyright holder? (ie these changes were copied in violation of that copyright in the first place) - or a case of changing-minds about rights to the commits of the original work? (if the latter then close the issue - nothing can or should be done - as it is a licencing issue then, not a copyright issue, and as Mark says the licence doesn't permit that revoking).
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 7:56 AM, Mark Proctor <mproctor(a)codehaus.org> wrote:
Yusuke,
At the time of your contributions to Drools and other projects you were a Red Hat employee. The Red Hat legal department has determined that it has the right to copy, modify and distribute your contributions under the Apache License version 2.0 and considers this matter closed. If you have any further need to discuss this please do so with Red Hat legal, - you have their contact details.
Even if you were not a Red Hat employee, which you were at the time, you cannot undo an OSS code contribution, that is not how OSS licensing works. At the time the code was contributed in good faith under the Apache license, you cannot then decide at a later date to change your mind. The OSS licenses, be it ASL or LGPL or GPL, are designed specifically to provide certainty in that area. Without this level of certainty end user OSS adoption would be a minefield as every time developers fall out, which happens often, one could demand all their code be removed and this would impact everyone who has invested time installing that software in production systems.
Mark
On 31/08/2010 17:41, 山本 裕介 wrote:
I have consulted RH legal dept. only to get no meaningful response.
I guess Edson is the one who commit most of these files.
The how and why they need to be uncommitted is attached to the Jira issue.
Thanks,
Yusuke
On Sep 1, 2010, at 1:34 AM, Mauricio Salatino wrote:
Hi Yusuke, good question. I'm not sure where is the right place, but you are only asking to rollback your changes right?
who commit all your contributions to the jboss repo?
I also saw that you mention: "For several reasons, I decided to withdraw those contributions introduced from my spare time. "
can you mention those reasons? so we, as community can learn why you want to remove your contributions. I'm just curious.
Greetings.
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:50 PM, 山本 裕介 <yamamoyu(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Where is the appropriate forum for copyright issues?
On Sep 1, 2010, at 12:45 AM, Greg Barton wrote:
> This is not the appropriate forum for copyrighgt issues.
>
> GreG
>
> On Aug 31, 2010, at 9:40, 山本 裕介 <yamamoyu(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> There's a copyright violation issue on Drools 5.1 release.
> Please remove the changes listed in the following issue.
> https://jira.jboss.org/browse/JBRULES-2660
>
> Thanks,
> Yusuke
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
--
- CTO @ http://www.plugtree.com
- MyJourney @ http://salaboy.wordpress.com
- Co-Founder @ http://www.jbug.com.ar
- Salatino "Salaboy" Mauricio -
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
--
Michael D Neale
home: www.michaelneale.net
blog: michaelneale.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
14 years, 3 months
Re: [rules-dev] [rules-users] copyright violation issue on Drools
by Mark Proctor
Yusuke,
At the time of your contributions to Drools and other projects you were
a Red Hat employee. The Red Hat legal department has determined that it
has the right to copy, modify and distribute your contributions under
the Apache License version 2.0 and considers this matter closed. If you
have any further need to discuss this please do so with Red Hat legal, -
you have their contact details.
Even if you were not a Red Hat employee, which you were at the time, you
cannot undo an OSS code contribution, that is not how OSS licensing
works. At the time the code was contributed in good faith under the
Apache license, you cannot then decide at a later date to change your
mind. The OSS licenses, be it ASL or LGPL or GPL, are designed
specifically to provide certainty in that area. Without this level of
certainty end user OSS adoption would be a minefield as every time
developers fall out, which happens often, one could demand all their
code be removed and this would impact everyone who has invested time
installing that software in production systems.
Mark
On 31/08/2010 17:41, 山本 裕介 wrote:
> I have consulted RH legal dept. only to get no meaningful response.
> I guess Edson is the one who commit most of these files.
> The how and why they need to be uncommitted is attached to the Jira issue.
>
> Thanks,
> Yusuke
>
> On Sep 1, 2010, at 1:34 AM, Mauricio Salatino wrote:
>
>> Hi Yusuke, good question. I'm not sure where is the right place, but
>> you are only asking to rollback your changes right?
>> who commit all your contributions to the jboss repo?
>> I also saw that you mention: "For several reasons, I decided to
>> withdraw those contributions introduced from my spare time. "
>> can you mention those reasons? so we, as community can learn why you
>> want to remove your contributions. I'm just curious.
>> Greetings.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:50 PM, 山本 裕介 <yamamoyu(a)gmail.com
>> <mailto:yamamoyu@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Where is the appropriate forum for copyright issues?
>>
>> On Sep 1, 2010, at 12:45 AM, Greg Barton wrote:
>>
>> > This is not the appropriate forum for copyrighgt issues.
>> >
>> > GreG
>> >
>> > On Aug 31, 2010, at 9:40, 山本 裕介 <yamamoyu(a)gmail.com
>> <mailto:yamamoyu@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > There's a copyright violation issue on Drools 5.1 release.
>> > Please remove the changes listed in the following issue.
>> > https://jira.jboss.org/browse/JBRULES-2660
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Yusuke
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > rules-users mailing list
>> > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
>> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > rules-users mailing list
>> > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
>> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rules-users mailing list
>> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> - CTO @ http://www.plugtree.com <http://www.plugtree.com/>
>> - MyJourney @ http://salaboy.wordpress.com
>> <http://salaboy.wordpress.com/>
>> - Co-Founder @ http://www.jbug.com.ar <http://www.jbug.com.ar/>
>>
>> - Salatino "Salaboy" Mauricio -
>> _______________________________________________
>> rules-users mailing list
>> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
14 years, 3 months
Re: [rules-dev] [rules-users] copyright violation issue on Drools
by 山本 裕介
Richard's answer was:
- I am actually currently on PTO but will get back to you as soon as practicable when I return.(Aug 21)
- We will not be removing those changes. Please do not continue asking about this matter.(Aug 31)
That's why I post this matter to this list.
On Sep 1, 2010, at 6:19 AM, Mark Proctor wrote:
> Because this is a legal matter no one in my team can do anything or discuss anything with you, we've been instructed that everything must go through RHT legal. Please discuss this directly with Richard Fontana: rfontana(a)redhat.com
>
> Mark
>
>
> On 31/08/2010 17:41, 山本 裕介 wrote:
>> I have consulted RH legal dept. only to get no meaningful response.
>> I guess Edson is the one who commit most of these files.
>> The how and why they need to be uncommitted is attached to the Jira issue.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Yusuke
>>
>> On Sep 1, 2010, at 1:34 AM, Mauricio Salatino wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Yusuke, good question. I'm not sure where is the right place, but you are only asking to rollback your changes right?
>>> who commit all your contributions to the jboss repo?
>>> I also saw that you mention: "For several reasons, I decided to withdraw those contributions introduced from my spare time. "
>>> can you mention those reasons? so we, as community can learn why you want to remove your contributions. I'm just curious.
>>> Greetings.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:50 PM, 山本 裕介 <yamamoyu(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Where is the appropriate forum for copyright issues?
>>>
>>> On Sep 1, 2010, at 12:45 AM, Greg Barton wrote:
>>>
>>> > This is not the appropriate forum for copyrighgt issues.
>>> >
>>> > GreG
>>> >
>>> > On Aug 31, 2010, at 9:40, 山本 裕介 <yamamoyu(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Hi,
>>> >
>>> > There's a copyright violation issue on Drools 5.1 release.
>>> > Please remove the changes listed in the following issue.
>>> > https://jira.jboss.org/browse/JBRULES-2660
>>> >
>>> > Thanks,
>>> > Yusuke
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > rules-users mailing list
>>> > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
>>> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > rules-users mailing list
>>> > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
>>> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rules-users mailing list
>>> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> - CTO @ http://www.plugtree.com
>>> - MyJourney @ http://salaboy.wordpress.com
>>> - Co-Founder @ http://www.jbug.com.ar
>>>
>>> - Salatino "Salaboy" Mauricio -
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rules-users mailing list
>>> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rules-users mailing list
>>
>> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
14 years, 3 months
Drools 5.1, names wanted
by Mark Proctor
We are about to officiallly announce Drools 5.1, if you helped in any
significant way for 5.1 please remined me so I can add you to list of
names at the bottom of the announcement.
So far I have:
Core:
Mark Proctor
Edson Tirelli
Kris Verlaenen
Toni Rikkola
Michael Neale
Geoffrey De Smet
Community:
Antoine Toulm
Wolfgang Laun
Hadrian Zbarcea
Tihomir Surdilovic
Pablo Nussembaum
Lucaz Amador
Esteban Aliverti
Diego Uitoll
Mauricio Salatino
Thanks
Mark
14 years, 3 months
