October 2011 - rules-users - Jboss List Archives

ksession.insert() executes sequentially in multithreaded StatefulKnowledgeSessions

by juancarlos.fernandezj

Hello, I'm having trouble when trying to insert() facts inside parallel StatefulKnowledgeSessions. From a main() java program I start multiple threads. Every thread creates new KnowledgeBase and every KnowledgeBase creates new StatefulKnowledgeSession so I have one StatefulKnowledgeSession in every thread. Once StatefulKnowledgeSession has been created, I insert lots of facts in each StatefulKnowledgeSession. What was expected? I expected to run insert() in parallel, each insert inside its thread StatefulKnowledgeSession. 4 threads inserting lots of facts inside its own StatefulKnowledgeSession is expected to run in parallel and see how CPU usage increases. What have I seen? when all threads are inserting facts in its own StatefulKnowledgeSession I can see that only one CPU is being used so there is no parallel insertion in different StatefulKnowledgeSession. Is there a synchronization inside insert() code? It's so strange. Even if i try with 12 threads, I can't see a CPU usage increase when executing parallel insert() inside different StatefulKnowledgeSession (threads). Help please. This is my thread code (no static objects): public class KnowledgeSessionThread extends Thread { private StatefulKnowledgeSession session; private Message[] facts; public KnowledgeSessionThread(Message[] facts) throws Exception { session = readKnowledgeBase().newStatefulKnowledgeSession(); this.facts = facts; } public void run() { try { for( int i = 0; i < facts.length; i++ ) { session.insert(facts[i]); } session.startProcess("flowId"); session.fireAllRules(); session.dispose(); System.out.println("Thread finished"); } catch( Exception e ) { e.printStackTrace(); } } private KnowledgeBase readKnowledgeBase() throws Exception { KnowledgeBuilder kbuilder = KnowledgeBuilderFactory.newKnowledgeBuilder(); kbuilder.add(ResourceFactory.newClassPathResource("Sample.drl"), ResourceType.DRL); kbuilder.add(ResourceFactory.newClassPathResource("Sample.bpmn"), ResourceType.BPMN2); KnowledgeBuilderErrors errors = kbuilder.getErrors(); if (errors.size() > 0) { for (KnowledgeBuilderError error: errors) { System.err.println(error); } throw new IllegalArgumentException("Could not parse knowledge."); } KnowledgeBase kbase = KnowledgeBaseFactory.newKnowledgeBase(); kbase.addKnowledgePackages(kbuilder.getKnowledgePackages()); return kbase; } } -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/ksession-insert-executes-sequentially-i... Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

14 years, 6 months

2
1
0 / 0

Re: [rules-users] Preventing re-evaluation on modification of 'output' fact

by GPatel＠tsys.com

Define FraudResultsDTO as a global. That way, you don't have to specify it in the WHEN part merely for assigning a variable to it ----- Original Message ----- From: Jamie [jshaw(a)llbean.com] Sent: 10/26/2011 09:24 AM MST To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org Subject: [rules-users] Preventing re-evaluation on modification of 'output' fact We're building a fraud detection application that uses rules to analyze orders and the buyers and recipients on those orders. As rules fire, they modify an 'output' fact, which is an object whose only intent is to record the results as rules fire. It's not used in the LHS of any rules other than to get a handle to it, e.g.: rule "Rule 001 - Operator Flagged" enabled (FraudRuleEvaluationHelper.isRuleEnabled("Rule 001 - Operator Flagged")) ruleflow-group "orderAnalysis" lock-on-active when $order: OrderFact(operatorFlagged==true) $results: FraudResultsDTO() then modify($results) { addOrderSuspectReason("O") }; FraudRuleConsequenceHelper.logRuleFiring($order.getOrderId(), "001"); end We're finding that as the number of facts increases, the processing team increases dramatically and I'm wondering if modifying the output fact the way we do causes the rules to get re-evaluated to see if any activations should be created or cancelled. Would removing the modify block help anything? Should we be thinking about this in some other way? -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Preventing-re-evaluation-on-modificatio... Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users ----------------------------------------- The information contained in this communication (including any attachments hereto) is confidential and is intended solely for the personal and confidential use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and that any review, dissemination, copying, or unauthorized use of this information, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message. Thank you

14 years, 6 months

1
0
0 / 0

dsl and metadata rule information

by gcautiero

Hello, I'm not able to find a way to define in my DSL a phrase to add metadata for a certain rule. I'm interested to provide something that can help end user to add data-effective metadata for some rule in the DSLR file. -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/dsl-and-metadata-rule-information-tp345... Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

14 years, 6 months

2
2
0 / 0

[drools 5.3.0.Final] Predicate ... must be a Boolean expression

by kennywest

I did a quick search in the mailing list, but couldn't find a related issue. The following rule worked fine in 5.3.0.CR1 (and earlier) ... when $party : ImmutableParty(addresses == null || addresses.size() == 0) then ... ImmutableParty has a getter for addresses and addresses is a collection. When upgrading to 5.3.0.Final, I get this error: Caused by: java.lang.RuntimeException: Predicate 'addresses == null || addresses.size() == 0' must be a Boolean expression [Line: 17, Column: 32] : [Rule name='party - address - at least one'] This is with mvel 2.1 beta 6. -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/drools-5-3-0-Final-Predicate-must-be-a-... Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

14 years, 6 months

2
2
0 / 0

Drools 5.3.0.Final with jBPM

by Melton, Michael P CTR SPAWARSYSCEN-ATLANTIC, 01200

Is there a recommended version of jBPM to use in conjunction with Drools 5.3.0.Final? We are currently using jBPM 5.1.0.Final alongside Drools 5.2.0.Final, but I see in Nexus that jBPM has 5.1.1Final and 5.1.2.Final releases and I'd like to only upgrade one time. Thank you.

14 years, 6 months

2
1
0 / 0

Fwd: Questions

by Michael Anstis

Anybody? ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Damien Renier All, I’m trying to prepare some answers to questions of a customer The client wish to execute some rules on dates which are not today. The rule is: 1. | rule "TooYoung" 2. | date-expires "26-MAR-2013" 3. | date-effective "19-MAR-2010" 4. | dialect "mvel" 5. | when 6. | Driver( age < "16" ) 7. | then 8. | Rejection fact0 = new Rejection(); 9. | fact0.setReason( "TooYoung" ); 10. | insert(fact0 ); 11. | System.out.println("TooYoung"); 12. | end First test with execution date set to today in Guvnor/test-scenario Rule is executed - OK Second test with execution date set to tomorrow Rule is executed – OK Now one change the rule’s attributes and execution date Execution date = 20-MAR-2011 date-effective = 19-MAR-2010 date-expires = 26-MAR-2011 no execution Execution date = 20-MAR-2012 date-effective = 19-MAR-2012 date-expires = 26-MAR-2013 no execution So my guess is the execution date is ignored. I tried to use the AgendaFilter unsuccessfully. ksession.fireAllRules(new AgendaFilter() { public boolean accept(Activation a) { System.out.println("-- " + a.getRule().getName()); return true; } }); But this code do not work for the specific rule above, others with no date attributes are going through and the sysout do its job. My question is: How can I tell the engine which rule to execute based on the execution date? Maybe this behaviour is only in Guvnor. Is it possible to set an execution date to the engine which is not today and how to do it? Thank you Damien

14 years, 6 months

1
0
0 / 0

[drools planner 5.3.0 Final] cached planning values

by guyver

I get the following exception when i try to solve and don't know if i didn't set something properly on my side or if there is a bug in the planner. After debugging, seems like cachedPlanningValues in PlanningValueCreator is being created as an empty collection and when PlanningValueWalker gets cachedPlanningValues's iterator and tries to iterate through it then it gets a NoSuchElementException. I am a little confused as to when the extractPlanningValues method is called in PlanningValueSelector to get a collection of planned values a null is begin passed in instead of a planning entity which is responsible for the empty cachedPlanningValues collection. Any help on this issue will be much appreciated. java.util.NoSuchElementException at java.util.AbstractList$SimpleListIterator.next(AbstractList.java:61) at org.drools.planner.core.heuristic.selector.variable.PlanningValueWalker.initWalk(PlanningValueWalker.java:90) at org.drools.planner.core.heuristic.selector.variable.PlanningVariableWalker.initWalk(PlanningVariableWalker.java:104) at org.drools.planner.core.constructionheuristic.greedyFit.decider.DefaultGreedyDecider.decideNextStep(DefaultGreedyDecider.java:58) at org.drools.planner.core.constructionheuristic.greedyFit.DefaultGreedyFitSolverPhase.solve(DefaultGreedyFitSolverPhase.java:62) at org.drools.planner.core.solver.DefaultSolver.runSolverPhases(DefaultSolver.java:166) at org.drools.planner.core.solver.DefaultSolver.solve(DefaultSolver.java:138) -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/drools-planner-5-3-0-Final-cached-plann... Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

14 years, 6 months

2
2
0 / 0

Decision Table with more than 9 parameters

by marta

Hi, I've a problem with Drools 5.1.1. I'm using a decision table to write my rules and I need to use more than 9 parameters in the same action, but something doesn't work. In fact the $10 parameter is interpreted by Drools as the first parameter ($1) with 0 appended on queue. Does exist a different way to write the tenth (or greater) parameter? Thanks. -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Decision-Table-with-more-than-9-paramet... Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

14 years, 6 months

2
1
0 / 0

[planner][5.3.0.Final] Benchmark

by Guilherme Kunigami

I'm trying to upgrade from drools 5.2.0 to 5.3.0 and having some difficulties with the planner benchmark. I'd like to make a set of move factories common to all local search solvers, by adding them to inheritedSolverBenchmark block. But it seems that the localSearch environment always requires a selector, so I can't specify the localSearch environment for the solverBenchmark's without providing a selector. Here's a piece of code that gives runtime error: http://paste.ubuntu.com/718806/ The error is: Exception in thread "main" java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: A selector requires configuration, for example a moveFactoryClass. --- Note --- If I understood correcly, the following configuration from examination examples: examinationStepLimitSolverBenchmarkConfig.xml contains a bug, because it specifies a maximum step count for a general solver <termination> <maximumStepCount>70</maximumStepCount> </termination> This gave the following exception: Exception in thread "main" java.lang.UnsupportedOperationException: StepCountTermination can only be used for phase termination. Thanks,

14 years, 6 months

2
1
0 / 0

Looking for a Drools lecturer

by Laurence Vignollet

Hello, We have introduced a "rule-engine" course in a 5th year of Computer Science Study in University of Savoie, France. We would like to give some hours on a Drools initiation, including practise, to the 20 students attending this course. If somebody could be interested, please contact me by email. Thanks in advance, all the best, Laurence Vignollet -- Université de Savoie Campus Scientifique 73370 Le Bourget-du-Lac Tel : +33 (0)479 758 847 Fax : +33 (0)479 758 690

14 years, 6 months

3
2
0 / 0

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

rules-users October 2011