I’ve spent a little time
looking into allowing the invokers to be generated as methods in a single class
rather than individual classes as is discussed below.
It seems like a new set of mvel
templates will need to be created to allow the java invokers to be generated as
methods rather than individual classes. Then the Abstract Builder code will
need to be updated to reference the correct template based on the user provided
granularity level. For granularity, should there be any levels outside of: one
class per package, one class per rule, and the current one class per invoker?
Am I on the right track?
Thanks,
Joe
From: rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org
[mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Mark Proctor
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 11:01 AM
To: Rules Users List
Cc: Rules Dev List
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Max packages
Joe White wrote:
Mark, thank you very much for
your help, it is greatly appreciated.
“There
are improvements we can make to generated code into a single class and use a
switch statement to invoke the correct part, but we don't have time for that right
now, so would need to come from the community.”
I would be interested in doing this work if someone can point me
in the right direction on where to start.
look
for the *.mvel templates in drools-compiler you'll see how we generate the
code. Then look at all the various java builders, like JavaConsequenceBuilder
and you'll see how we construct it. compiled code is done in two places. We
first generate an invoker class which implements the interface, like the
Consequence interface and then we genernate the code to be executed which is
called via the invoker. It needs to be two as the needed parameters for the
java consequence to execute differer (different number of vars) so the invokers
job is to match the needed interfaces and adapt/bridge to calling to the actual
consequence/eval/predicate. We currently generate all the
consequence/eval/predicate in a single class per rule, but we have a class per
invoker.
So we now need invoker apis, like Consequence, to take an int so it can use a
switch statement to which allows multiple invocations to be generated into the
same file. An idea solution will take a configuration on teh granularity that
people want - to what we have now right up to putting everything into a single
file for the entire package.
I also would be interested in doing the work to allow drools to
reference multiple levels of inner classes.
This
is done and fixed in 4.0.x and trunk - we just haven't released any binaries
wit hteh fix.
Our work would benefit from both pieces of functionality.
I’ll move this to the developer list, but would appreciate if somebody
knowledgeable could show me where to get started on the code necessary to
generate to a single class.
I've
cc'd this into the dev mailing list, so please when you reply do so to just that
mailing list.
Thanks,
Joe
From: rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org
[mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org]
On Behalf Of Mark Proctor
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 2:53 AM
To: Rules Users List
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Max packages
Joe White wrote:
Can someone help me understand the relationship between the
number of Packages in a single RuleBase and PermGen memory consumption? I have
a test that generates 200 rules and then adds those rules as different
packages to a single rule base. PermGen consumption grows near linearly with
the addition of Packages to the rule base and on a default PermGen setting the
JVM runs out of PermGen after about 120 packages.
It's
not related to Packages, it's related to the number of rules and whether those
rules have compiled java parts - like the consequence, eval etc - each
one adds an additional class.
Is every new Package and RuleBase backed by a set of
generated Classes? Is there a way to get around the amount of class generation
that is taking place?
The test has been run against Drools 5.
You
can use MVEL, which has no class generation. There are improvements we can make
to generated code into a single class and use a switch statement to invoke the
correct part, but we don't have time for that right now, so would need to come
from the community.
Thank you for your help,
Joe