2:22 p.m.
Hi everybody.
I Have a flow : [Start] -> [First_HumanTask] -> Split -> [Second_HumanTask]
or [End].
Someday i had asked about why my flow was stopped (See [droolsflow ] Flow is
Stoped) . Kris Verlaenem, told to me to use
https://hudson.jboss.org/hudson/job/drools/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/t....
I Created on my Split node this contraint:
*processInstance : WorkflowProcessInstance()
ticketBeanVar : TicketBean( id == ( processInstance.getVariable("ticketId")
) )
eval(ticketBeanVar.isApproved() == true)*
This works for the first instance (I finished the [First_HumanTask] , and he
was going to SecondHumanTask), but for the second instance, after i complete
the [First_HumanTask] , the flow stayed stopped (only for the second
instance). ( If i Change, first the second instance and then first instance
occurred the same problem (The first instance stayed stopped) )
What's wrong?
Thanks
5:58 a.m.
New subject: [droolsflow] Code-based constraints for EventWait nodes - is this possible?
Can the constraint for an EventWait node in a flow be code-based (rather
than rule-based)? The Eclipse plug-in (v 5.0.1) doesn't allow this to be
specified, unlike say for a Split node, although the relevant XML can of
course be edited.
Trying to load such a process flow results in a NullPointerException,
because the constraint is always interpreted as a rule.
Ideally what I'd like to do is have an EventWait node where the constraint
tests the value of a process variable. This then leads me to another
question; is there a way of setting the value of a process variable via
the Drools Flow API?
Thanks in advance for any help,
Alan
Tessella plc
26 The Quadrant, Abingdon Science Park, Abingdon, Oxfordshire, OX14 3YS
E: Alan.Gairey(a)tessella.com, T: +44 (0)1235 555511, F: +44 (0)1235 553301
www.tessella.com Registered in England No. 1466429
This message is commercial in confidence and may be privileged. It is
intended for the addressee(s) only. Access to this message by anyone else
is unauthorized and strictly prohibited. If you have received this message
in error, please inform the sender immediately. Please note that messages
sent or received by the Tessella e-mail system may be monitored and stored
in an information retrieval system.
9:40 p.m.
New subject: [droolsflow] Code-based constraints for EventWait nodes - is this possible?
No, the constraint of an EventWait node (or the State node in Drools
5.1) can only be rule-based. The reason for this is that the rule
engine knows when to re-evaluates rules (based on the evailable input).
If you would use a code-based constraint, the engine would have no idea
when this code constraint might become true (if it was false at the
start). Only constant re-evaluation of the code constraint could
achieve this (which would be tremendously inefficient). Could you
explain why you would like to have this behaviour? Maybe there is an
alternative way to model this.
To change the value of a variable from inside the process (using an
action), simply use kcontext.setVariable(name, value). We do not
recommend manually changing the value of a process variable from outside
the engine. Again, could you explain why you would like to have this
functionality?
Kris
Quoting Alan.Gairey(a)tessella.com:
Can the constraint for an EventWait node in a flow be code-based
(rather
than rule-based)? The Eclipse plug-in (v 5.0.1) doesn't allow this to
be
specified, unlike say for a Split node, although the relevant XML can
of
course be edited.
Trying to load such a process flow results in a NullPointerException,
because the constraint is always interpreted as a rule.
Ideally what I'd like to do is have an EventWait node where the
constraint
tests the value of a process variable. This then leads me to another
question; is there a way of setting the value of a process variable
via
the Drools Flow API?
Thanks in advance for any help,
Alan
Tessella plc
26 The Quadrant, Abingdon Science Park, Abingdon, Oxfordshire, OX14
3YS
E: Alan.Gairey(a)tessella.com, T: +44 (0)1235 555511, F: +44 (0)1235
553301
www.tessella.com Registered in England No. 1466429
This message is commercial in confidence and may be privileged. It is
intended for the addressee(s) only. Access to this message by anyone
else
is unauthorized and strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message
in error, please inform the sender immediately. Please note that
messages
sent or received by the Tessella e-mail system may be monitored and
stored
in an information retrieval system.
Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm
11:28 a.m.
New subject: [droolsflow] Code-based constraints for EventWait nodes - is this possible?
Kris,
After posting my last question, I quickly came to the same conclusion as
you, so I'm now using a rule-based constraint in my EventWait node.
This however has presented a different problem. If I create my session
from JPAKnowledgeService, then when I try to insert my fact into the
session, I get the following error:
bitronix.tm.internal.BitronixRollbackException: transaction was marked as
rollback only and has been rolled back
at
bitronix.tm.BitronixTransaction.commit(BitronixTransaction.java:153)
at
bitronix.tm.BitronixTransactionManager.commit(BitronixTransactionManager.java:96)
at
org.drools.persistence.session.SingleSessionCommandService.execute(SingleSessionCommandService.java:258)
at
org.drools.command.impl.CommandBasedStatefulKnowledgeSession.insert(CommandBasedStatefulKnowledgeSession.java:305)
(Everything works fine if I create my session from the knowledge base -
i.e. with no state persistence.)
Prior to using a rule-based constraint (with no call to
CommandBasedStatefulKnowledgeSession.insert), the session created from
JPAKnowledgeService worked OK.
I'm using the default JPA configuration from the Drools documentation
(persisting to H2 database, etc.).
Any ideas what might be causing the problem?
Many thanks,
Alan
Kris Verlaenen <kris.verlaenen(a)cs.kuleuven.be>
23/10/2009 03:00
To
Rules Users List <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>, Alan.Gairey(a)tessella.com
cc
Rules Users List <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>
Subject
Re: [rules-users] [droolsflow] Code-based constraints for EventWait nodes
- is this possible?
No, the constraint of an EventWait node (or the State node in Drools
5.1) can only be rule-based. The reason for this is that the rule
engine knows when to re-evaluates rules (based on the evailable input).
If you would use a code-based constraint, the engine would have no idea
when this code constraint might become true (if it was false at the
start). Only constant re-evaluation of the code constraint could
achieve this (which would be tremendously inefficient). Could you
explain why you would like to have this behaviour? Maybe there is an
alternative way to model this.
To change the value of a variable from inside the process (using an
action), simply use kcontext.setVariable(name, value). We do not
recommend manually changing the value of a process variable from outside
the engine. Again, could you explain why you would like to have this
functionality?
Kris
Quoting Alan.Gairey(a)tessella.com:
Can the constraint for an EventWait node in a flow be code-based
(rather
than rule-based)? The Eclipse plug-in (v 5.0.1) doesn't allow this to
be
specified, unlike say for a Split node, although the relevant XML can
of
course be edited.
Trying to load such a process flow results in a NullPointerException,
because the constraint is always interpreted as a rule.
Ideally what I'd like to do is have an EventWait node where the
constraint
tests the value of a process variable. This then leads me to another
question; is there a way of setting the value of a process variable
via
the Drools Flow API?
Thanks in advance for any help,
Alan
Tessella plc
26 The Quadrant, Abingdon Science Park, Abingdon, Oxfordshire, OX14
3YS
E: Alan.Gairey(a)tessella.com, T: +44 (0)1235 555511, F: +44 (0)1235
553301
www.tessella.com Registered in England No. 1466429
This message is commercial in confidence and may be privileged. It is
intended for the addressee(s) only. Access to this message by anyone
else
is unauthorized and strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message
in error, please inform the sender immediately. Please note that
messages
sent or received by the Tessella e-mail system may be monitored and
stored
in an information retrieval system.
Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm
6:21 a.m.
New subject: [droolsflow] Code-based constraints for EventWait nodes - is this possible?
Alan,
Could you send me the entire output / stack trace (as the rollback of
the transaction is usually caused by another exception)?
Or a simple test case that shows the error, so I can take a look?
Thx,
Kris
Quoting Alan.Gairey(a)tessella.com:
Kris,
After posting my last question, I quickly came to the same conclusion
as
you, so I'm now using a rule-based constraint in my EventWait node.
This however has presented a different problem. If I create my
session
from JPAKnowledgeService, then when I try to insert my fact into the
session, I get the following error:
bitronix.tm.internal.BitronixRollbackException: transaction was
marked as
rollback only and has been rolled back
at
bitronix.tm.BitronixTransaction.commit(BitronixTransaction.java:153)
at
bitronix.tm.BitronixTransactionManager.commit(BitronixTransactionManager.java:96)
at
org.drools.persistence.session.SingleSessionCommandService.execute(SingleSessionCommandService.java:258)
at
org.drools.command.impl.CommandBasedStatefulKnowledgeSession.insert(CommandBasedStatefulKnowledgeSession.java:305)
(Everything works fine if I create my session from the knowledge
base
-
i.e. with no state persistence.)
Prior to using a rule-based constraint (with no call to
CommandBasedStatefulKnowledgeSession.insert), the session created
from
JPAKnowledgeService worked OK.
I'm using the default JPA configuration from the Drools documentation
(persisting to H2 database, etc.).
Any ideas what might be causing the problem?
Many thanks,
Alan
Kris Verlaenen <kris.verlaenen(a)cs.kuleuven.be>
23/10/2009 03:00
To
Rules Users List <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>,
Alan.Gairey(a)tessella.com
cc
Rules Users List <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>
Subject
Re: [rules-users] [droolsflow] Code-based constraints for EventWait
nodes
- is this possible?
No, the constraint of an EventWait node (or the State node in Drools
5.1) can only be rule-based. The reason for this is that the rule
engine knows when to re-evaluates rules (based on the evailable
input).
If you would use a code-based constraint, the engine would have no
idea
when this code constraint might become true (if it was false at the
start). Only constant re-evaluation of the code constraint could
achieve this (which would be tremendously inefficient). Could you
explain why you would like to have this behaviour? Maybe there is
an
alternative way to model this.
To change the value of a variable from inside the process (using an
action), simply use kcontext.setVariable(name, value). We do not
recommend manually changing the value of a process variable from
outside
the engine. Again, could you explain why you would like to have
this
functionality?
Kris
Quoting Alan.Gairey(a)tessella.com:
> Can the constraint for an EventWait node in a flow be code-based
> (rather
> than rule-based)? The Eclipse plug-in (v 5.0.1) doesn't allow this
to
> be
> specified, unlike say for a Split node, although the relevant XML
can
> of
> course be edited.
> Trying to load such a process flow results in a
NullPointerException,
>
> because the constraint is always interpreted as a rule.
>
> Ideally what I'd like to do is have an EventWait node where the
> constraint
> tests the value of a process variable. This then leads me to
another
>
> question; is there a way of setting the value of a process
variable
> via
> the Drools Flow API?
>
> Thanks in advance for any help,
>
> Alan
> Tessella plc
> 26 The Quadrant, Abingdon Science Park, Abingdon, Oxfordshire,
OX14
> 3YS
> E: Alan.Gairey(a)tessella.com, T: +44 (0)1235 555511, F: +44 (0)1235
> 553301
> www.tessella.com Registered in England No. 1466429
>
> This message is commercial in confidence and may be privileged. It
is
>
> intended for the addressee(s) only. Access to this message by
anyone
> else
> is unauthorized and strictly prohibited. If you have received this
> message
> in error, please inform the sender immediately. Please note that
> messages
> sent or received by the Tessella e-mail system may be monitored
and
> stored
> in an information retrieval system.
>
Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm
Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm
8:54 a.m.
New subject: [droolsflow] Code-based constraints for EventWait nodes - is this possible?
Kris,
I've attached a simple test case (transaction manager, data source, etc.
are configured via Spring). The error is thrown on line:
ksession.insert(new SimpleFact());
If this line is commented out, the rule flow executes without error.
Many thanks for looking at this.
Regards,
Alan
Kris Verlaenen <kris.verlaenen(a)cs.kuleuven.be>
28/10/2009 10:40
To
Alan.Gairey(a)tessella.com
cc
Rules Users List <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>
Subject
Re: [rules-users] [droolsflow] Code-based constraints for EventWait nodes
- is this possible?
Alan,
Could you send me the entire output / stack trace (as the rollback of
the transaction is usually caused by another exception)?
Or a simple test case that shows the error, so I can take a look?
Thx,
Kris
Quoting Alan.Gairey(a)tessella.com:
Kris,
After posting my last question, I quickly came to the same conclusion
as
you, so I'm now using a rule-based constraint in my EventWait node.
This however has presented a different problem. If I create my
session
from JPAKnowledgeService, then when I try to insert my fact into the
session, I get the following error:
bitronix.tm.internal.BitronixRollbackException: transaction was
marked as
rollback only and has been rolled back
at
bitronix.tm.BitronixTransaction.commit(BitronixTransaction.java:153)
at
bitronix.tm.BitronixTransactionManager.commit(BitronixTransactionManager.java:96)
at
org.drools.persistence.session.SingleSessionCommandService.execute(SingleSessionCommandService.java:258)
at
org.drools.command.impl.CommandBasedStatefulKnowledgeSession.insert(CommandBasedStatefulKnowledgeSession.java:305)
(Everything works fine if I create my session from the knowledge
base
-
i.e. with no state persistence.)
Prior to using a rule-based constraint (with no call to
CommandBasedStatefulKnowledgeSession.insert), the session created
from
JPAKnowledgeService worked OK.
I'm using the default JPA configuration from the Drools documentation
(persisting to H2 database, etc.).
Any ideas what might be causing the problem?
Many thanks,
Alan
Kris Verlaenen <kris.verlaenen(a)cs.kuleuven.be>
23/10/2009 03:00
To
Rules Users List <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>,
Alan.Gairey(a)tessella.com
cc
Rules Users List <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>
Subject
Re: [rules-users] [droolsflow] Code-based constraints for EventWait
nodes
- is this possible?
No, the constraint of an EventWait node (or the State node in Drools
5.1) can only be rule-based. The reason for this is that the rule
engine knows when to re-evaluates rules (based on the evailable
input).
If you would use a code-based constraint, the engine would have no
idea
when this code constraint might become true (if it was false at the
start). Only constant re-evaluation of the code constraint could
achieve this (which would be tremendously inefficient). Could you
explain why you would like to have this behaviour? Maybe there is
an
alternative way to model this.
To change the value of a variable from inside the process (using an
action), simply use kcontext.setVariable(name, value). We do not
recommend manually changing the value of a process variable from
outside
the engine. Again, could you explain why you would like to have
this
functionality?
Kris
Quoting Alan.Gairey(a)tessella.com:
> Can the constraint for an EventWait node in a flow be code-based
> (rather
> than rule-based)? The Eclipse plug-in (v 5.0.1) doesn't allow this
to
> be
> specified, unlike say for a Split node, although the relevant XML
can
> of
> course be edited.
> Trying to load such a process flow results in a
NullPointerException,
>
> because the constraint is always interpreted as a rule.
>
> Ideally what I'd like to do is have an EventWait node where the
> constraint
> tests the value of a process variable. This then leads me to
another
>
> question; is there a way of setting the value of a process
variable
> via
> the Drools Flow API?
>
> Thanks in advance for any help,
>
> Alan
> Tessella plc
> 26 The Quadrant, Abingdon Science Park, Abingdon, Oxfordshire,
OX14
> 3YS
> E: Alan.Gairey(a)tessella.com, T: +44 (0)1235 555511, F: +44 (0)1235
> 553301
> www.tessella.com Registered in England No. 1466429
>
> This message is commercial in confidence and may be privileged. It
is
>
> intended for the addressee(s) only. Access to this message by
anyone
> else
> is unauthorized and strictly prohibited. If you have received this
> message
> in error, please inform the sender immediately. Please note that
> messages
> sent or received by the Tessella e-mail system may be monitored
and
> stored
> in an information retrieval system.
>
Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm
Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm
7:41 a.m.
New subject: [droolsflow] Code-based constraints for EventWait nodes - is this possible?
Alan,
The cause of the rollback of the transaction is this:
Caused by: java.io.NotSerializableException: com.test.SimpleFact
The reason is that, if you use persistence for your session, the
persister will try to save all runtime state of the engine. This does
not only include process instances, but also rule-related state. By
default, this also includes the data inserted in the memory. We support
two strategies for storing this data: serialization of the data
(default) or JPA-based storage of entities (by reference). In this
case, the persister is trying to serialize the test object you inserted
and fails. Making it serializable should fix this.
Kris
Quoting Alan.Gairey(a)tessella.com:
Kris,
I've attached a simple test case (transaction manager, data source,
etc.
are configured via Spring). The error is thrown on line:
ksession.insert(new SimpleFact());
If this line is commented out, the rule flow executes without error.
Many thanks for looking at this.
Regards,
Alan
Kris Verlaenen <kris.verlaenen(a)cs.kuleuven.be>
28/10/2009 10:40
To
Alan.Gairey(a)tessella.com
cc
Rules Users List <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>
Subject
Re: [rules-users] [droolsflow] Code-based constraints for EventWait
nodes
- is this possible?
Alan,
Could you send me the entire output / stack trace (as the rollback
of
the transaction is usually caused by another exception)?
Or a simple test case that shows the error, so I can take a look?
Thx,
Kris
Quoting Alan.Gairey(a)tessella.com:
> Kris,
>
> After posting my last question, I quickly came to the same
conclusion
> as
> you, so I'm now using a rule-based constraint in my EventWait
node.
>
> This however has presented a different problem. If I create my
> session
> from JPAKnowledgeService, then when I try to insert my fact into
the
>
> session, I get the following error:
>
> bitronix.tm.internal.BitronixRollbackException: transaction was
> marked as
> rollback only and has been rolled back
> at
>
bitronix.tm.BitronixTransaction.commit(BitronixTransaction.java:153)
> at
>
bitronix.tm.BitronixTransactionManager.commit(BitronixTransactionManager.java:96)
> at
>
org.drools.persistence.session.SingleSessionCommandService.execute(SingleSessionCommandService.java:258)
> at
>
org.drools.command.impl.CommandBasedStatefulKnowledgeSession.insert(CommandBasedStatefulKnowledgeSession.java:305)
> (Everything works fine if I create my session from the
knowledge
base
> -
> i.e. with no state persistence.)
> Prior to using a rule-based constraint (with no call to
> CommandBasedStatefulKnowledgeSession.insert), the session created
> from
> JPAKnowledgeService worked OK.
> I'm using the default JPA configuration from the Drools
documentation
>
> (persisting to H2 database, etc.).
> Any ideas what might be causing the problem?
> Many thanks,
> Alan
>
>
>
>
> Kris Verlaenen <kris.verlaenen(a)cs.kuleuven.be>
> 23/10/2009 03:00
>
> To
> Rules Users List <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>,
> Alan.Gairey(a)tessella.com
> cc
> Rules Users List <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>
> Subject
> Re: [rules-users] [droolsflow] Code-based constraints for
EventWait
> nodes
> - is this possible?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> No, the constraint of an EventWait node (or the State node in
Drools
> 5.1) can only be rule-based. The reason for this is that the rule
> engine knows when to re-evaluates rules (based on the evailable
> input).
> If you would use a code-based constraint, the engine would have
no
> idea
> when this code constraint might become true (if it was false at
the
> start). Only constant re-evaluation of the code constraint could
> achieve this (which would be tremendously inefficient). Could you
> explain why you would like to have this behaviour? Maybe there is
> an
> alternative way to model this.
>
> To change the value of a variable from inside the process (using
an
> action), simply use kcontext.setVariable(name, value). We do not
> recommend manually changing the value of a process variable from
> outside
> the engine. Again, could you explain why you would like to have
> this
> functionality?
>
> Kris
>
> Quoting Alan.Gairey(a)tessella.com:
>
> > Can the constraint for an EventWait node in a flow be code-based
> > (rather
> > than rule-based)? The Eclipse plug-in (v 5.0.1) doesn't allow
this
> to
> > be
> > specified, unlike say for a Split node, although the relevant
XML
> can
> > of
> > course be edited.
> > Trying to load such a process flow results in a
> NullPointerException,
> >
> > because the constraint is always interpreted as a rule.
> >
> > Ideally what I'd like to do is have an EventWait node where the
> > constraint
> > tests the value of a process variable. This then leads me to
> another
> >
> > question; is there a way of setting the value of a process
> variable
> > via
> > the Drools Flow API?
> >
> > Thanks in advance for any help,
> >
> > Alan
> > Tessella plc
> > 26 The Quadrant, Abingdon Science Park, Abingdon, Oxfordshire,
> OX14
> > 3YS
> > E: Alan.Gairey(a)tessella.com, T: +44 (0)1235 555511, F: +44
(0)1235
> > 553301
> > www.tessella.com Registered in England No. 1466429
> >
> > This message is commercial in confidence and may be privileged.
It
> is
> >
> > intended for the addressee(s) only. Access to this message by
> anyone
> > else
> > is unauthorized and strictly prohibited. If you have received
this
> > message
> > in error, please inform the sender immediately. Please note that
> > messages
> > sent or received by the Tessella e-mail system may be monitored
> and
> > stored
> > in an information retrieval system.
> >
>
>
>
>
> Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm
>
>
Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm
Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm
1:29 p.m.
New subject: [droolsflow] Code-based constraints for EventWait nodes - is this possible?
Kris,
Thanks - making the class SimpleFact serializable fixed that error.
However, I now have a new problem: I have a rule flow containing a work
item - the handler attempts to update the SimpleFact instance in memory
before completing the task. The code in the executeWorkItem method is as
follows:
Collection<FactHandle> factHandles = ksession.getFactHandles(new
ObjectFilter() {
public boolean accept(Object object) {
return (object instanceof SimpleFact);
}
});
for (Iterator<FactHandle> iterator = factHandles.iterator();
iterator.hasNext(); ) {
FactHandle factHandle = iterator.next();
SimpleFact fact = (SimpleFact) ksession.getObject(factHandle);
fact.setStatus("Error");
ksession.update(factHandle, fact);
}
workItemManager.completeWorkItem(workItem.getId(), null);
The call to getObject() causes the following exception to be thrown:
java.lang.NullPointerException
at
org.drools.command.runtime.rule.GetObjectCommand.execute(GetObjectCommand.java:35)
at
org.drools.persistence.session.SingleSessionCommandService.execute(SingleSessionCommandService.java:254)
at
org.drools.command.impl.CommandBasedStatefulKnowledgeSession.getObject(CommandBasedStatefulKnowledgeSession.java:369)
at
com.test.StatusChangeWorkItemHandler.executeWorkItem(StatusChangeWorkItemHandler.java:37)
...
I've attached another test case to illustrate the problem.
Once again, my sincere thanks for helping me with this.
Regards,
Alan
Kris Verlaenen <kris.verlaenen(a)cs.kuleuven.be>
29/10/2009 12:00
To
Alan.Gairey(a)tessella.com
cc
Rules Users List <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>
Subject
Re: [rules-users] [droolsflow] Code-based constraints for EventWait nodes
- is this possible?
Alan,
The cause of the rollback of the transaction is this:
Caused by: java.io.NotSerializableException: com.test.SimpleFact
The reason is that, if you use persistence for your session, the
persister will try to save all runtime state of the engine. This does
not only include process instances, but also rule-related state. By
default, this also includes the data inserted in the memory. We support
two strategies for storing this data: serialization of the data
(default) or JPA-based storage of entities (by reference). In this
case, the persister is trying to serialize the test object you inserted
and fails. Making it serializable should fix this.
Kris
Quoting Alan.Gairey(a)tessella.com:
Kris,
I've attached a simple test case (transaction manager, data source,
etc.
are configured via Spring). The error is thrown on line:
ksession.insert(new SimpleFact());
If this line is commented out, the rule flow executes without error.
Many thanks for looking at this.
Regards,
Alan
Kris Verlaenen <kris.verlaenen(a)cs.kuleuven.be>
28/10/2009 10:40
To
Alan.Gairey(a)tessella.com
cc
Rules Users List <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>
Subject
Re: [rules-users] [droolsflow] Code-based constraints for EventWait
nodes
- is this possible?
Alan,
Could you send me the entire output / stack trace (as the rollback
of
the transaction is usually caused by another exception)?
Or a simple test case that shows the error, so I can take a look?
Thx,
Kris
Quoting Alan.Gairey(a)tessella.com:
> Kris,
>
> After posting my last question, I quickly came to the same
conclusion
> as
> you, so I'm now using a rule-based constraint in my EventWait
node.
>
> This however has presented a different problem. If I create my
> session
> from JPAKnowledgeService, then when I try to insert my fact into
the
>
> session, I get the following error:
>
> bitronix.tm.internal.BitronixRollbackException: transaction was
> marked as
> rollback only and has been rolled back
> at
>
bitronix.tm.BitronixTransaction.commit(BitronixTransaction.java:153)
> at
>
bitronix.tm.BitronixTransactionManager.commit(BitronixTransactionManager.java:96)
> at
>
org.drools.persistence.session.SingleSessionCommandService.execute(SingleSessionCommandService.java:258)
> at
>
org.drools.command.impl.CommandBasedStatefulKnowledgeSession.insert(CommandBasedStatefulKnowledgeSession.java:305)
> (Everything works fine if I create my session from the
knowledge
base
> -
> i.e. with no state persistence.)
> Prior to using a rule-based constraint (with no call to
> CommandBasedStatefulKnowledgeSession.insert), the session created
> from
> JPAKnowledgeService worked OK.
> I'm using the default JPA configuration from the Drools
documentation
>
> (persisting to H2 database, etc.).
> Any ideas what might be causing the problem?
> Many thanks,
> Alan
>
>
>
>
> Kris Verlaenen <kris.verlaenen(a)cs.kuleuven.be>
> 23/10/2009 03:00
>
> To
> Rules Users List <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>,
> Alan.Gairey(a)tessella.com
> cc
> Rules Users List <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>
> Subject
> Re: [rules-users] [droolsflow] Code-based constraints for
EventWait
> nodes
> - is this possible?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> No, the constraint of an EventWait node (or the State node in
Drools
> 5.1) can only be rule-based. The reason for this is that the rule
> engine knows when to re-evaluates rules (based on the evailable
> input).
> If you would use a code-based constraint, the engine would have
no
> idea
> when this code constraint might become true (if it was false at
the
> start). Only constant re-evaluation of the code constraint could
> achieve this (which would be tremendously inefficient). Could you
> explain why you would like to have this behaviour? Maybe there is
> an
> alternative way to model this.
>
> To change the value of a variable from inside the process (using
an
> action), simply use kcontext.setVariable(name, value). We do not
> recommend manually changing the value of a process variable from
> outside
> the engine. Again, could you explain why you would like to have
> this
> functionality?
>
> Kris
>
> Quoting Alan.Gairey(a)tessella.com:
>
> > Can the constraint for an EventWait node in a flow be code-based
> > (rather
> > than rule-based)? The Eclipse plug-in (v 5.0.1) doesn't allow
this
> to
> > be
> > specified, unlike say for a Split node, although the relevant
XML
> can
> > of
> > course be edited.
> > Trying to load such a process flow results in a
> NullPointerException,
> >
> > because the constraint is always interpreted as a rule.
> >
> > Ideally what I'd like to do is have an EventWait node where the
> > constraint
> > tests the value of a process variable. This then leads me to
> another
> >
> > question; is there a way of setting the value of a process
> variable
> > via
> > the Drools Flow API?
> >
> > Thanks in advance for any help,
> >
> > Alan
> > Tessella plc
> > 26 The Quadrant, Abingdon Science Park, Abingdon, Oxfordshire,
> OX14
> > 3YS
> > E: Alan.Gairey(a)tessella.com, T: +44 (0)1235 555511, F: +44
(0)1235
> > 553301
> > www.tessella.com Registered in England No. 1466429
> >
> > This message is commercial in confidence and may be privileged.
It
> is
> >
> > intended for the addressee(s) only. Access to this message by
> anyone
> > else
> > is unauthorized and strictly prohibited. If you have received
this
> > message
> > in error, please inform the sender immediately. Please note that
> > messages
> > sent or received by the Tessella e-mail system may be monitored
> and
> > stored
> > in an information retrieval system.
> >
>
>
>
>
> Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm
>
>
Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm
Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm
7:06 a.m.
New subject: [droolsflow] Code-based constraints for EventWait nodes - is this possible?
Kris,
Some more information: the NullPointerException from GetObjectCommand is
thrown by the line:
((StatefulKnowledgeSessionImpl)ksession).session.getExecutionResult().getResults().put(
this.outIdentifier,
object );
Method getExecutionResult() is returning null. Debugging my test case, I
also notice that this.outIdentifier is also null.
I then had a look at the GetObjectsCommand class; in its execute method,
there is a line similar to that above. However, it is contained within an
if block that checks this.outIdentifier is not null:
if ( this.outIdentifier != null ) {
List objects = new ArrayList( col );
((StatefulKnowledgeSessionImpl)ksession).session.getExecutionResult().getResults().put(
this.outIdentifier, objects );
}
If something similar was done in GetObjectCommand, presumably this would
fix my problem?
Hope this is of some use - regards,
Alan
Alan.Gairey(a)tessella.com
Sent by: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org
29/10/2009 17:35
Please respond to
Rules Users List <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>
To
Kris Verlaenen <kris.verlaenen(a)cs.kuleuven.be>
cc
Rules Users List <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>
Subject
Re: [rules-users] [droolsflow] Code-based constraints for EventWait nodes
- is this possible?
Kris,
Thanks - making the class SimpleFact serializable fixed that error.
However, I now have a new problem: I have a rule flow containing a work
item - the handler attempts to update the SimpleFact instance in memory
before completing the task. The code in the executeWorkItem method is as
follows:
Collection<FactHandle> factHandles = ksession.getFactHandles(new
ObjectFilter() {
public boolean accept(Object object) {
return (object instanceof SimpleFact);
}
});
for (Iterator<FactHandle> iterator = factHandles.iterator();
iterator.hasNext(); ) {
FactHandle factHandle = iterator.next();
SimpleFact fact = (SimpleFact) ksession.getObject(factHandle);
fact.setStatus("Error");
ksession.update(factHandle, fact);
}
workItemManager.completeWorkItem(workItem.getId(), null);
The call to getObject() causes the following exception to be thrown:
java.lang.NullPointerException
at
org.drools.command.runtime.rule.GetObjectCommand.execute(GetObjectCommand.java:35)
at
org.drools.persistence.session.SingleSessionCommandService.execute(SingleSessionCommandService.java:254)
at
org.drools.command.impl.CommandBasedStatefulKnowledgeSession.getObject(CommandBasedStatefulKnowledgeSession.java:369)
at
com.test.StatusChangeWorkItemHandler.executeWorkItem(StatusChangeWorkItemHandler.java:37)
...
I've attached another test case to illustrate the problem.
Once again, my sincere thanks for helping me with this.
Regards,
Alan
Kris Verlaenen <kris.verlaenen(a)cs.kuleuven.be>
29/10/2009 12:00
To
Alan.Gairey(a)tessella.com
cc
Rules Users List <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>
Subject
Re: [rules-users] [droolsflow] Code-based constraints for EventWait nodes
- is this possible?
Alan,
The cause of the rollback of the transaction is this:
Caused by: java.io.NotSerializableException: com.test.SimpleFact
The reason is that, if you use persistence for your session, the
persister will try to save all runtime state of the engine. This does
not only include process instances, but also rule-related state. By
default, this also includes the data inserted in the memory. We support
two strategies for storing this data: serialization of the data
(default) or JPA-based storage of entities (by reference). In this
case, the persister is trying to serialize the test object you inserted
and fails. Making it serializable should fix this.
Kris
Quoting Alan.Gairey(a)tessella.com:
Kris,
I've attached a simple test case (transaction manager, data source,
etc.
are configured via Spring). The error is thrown on line:
ksession.insert(new SimpleFact());
If this line is commented out, the rule flow executes without error.
Many thanks for looking at this.
Regards,
Alan
Kris Verlaenen <kris.verlaenen(a)cs.kuleuven.be>
28/10/2009 10:40
To
Alan.Gairey(a)tessella.com
cc
Rules Users List <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>
Subject
Re: [rules-users] [droolsflow] Code-based constraints for EventWait
nodes
- is this possible?
Alan,
Could you send me the entire output / stack trace (as the rollback
of
the transaction is usually caused by another exception)?
Or a simple test case that shows the error, so I can take a look?
Thx,
Kris
Quoting Alan.Gairey(a)tessella.com:
> Kris,
>
> After posting my last question, I quickly came to the same
conclusion
> as
> you, so I'm now using a rule-based constraint in my EventWait
node.
>
> This however has presented a different problem. If I create my
> session
> from JPAKnowledgeService, then when I try to insert my fact into
the
>
> session, I get the following error:
>
> bitronix.tm.internal.BitronixRollbackException: transaction was
> marked as
> rollback only and has been rolled back
> at
>
bitronix.tm.BitronixTransaction.commit(BitronixTransaction.java:153)
> at
>
bitronix.tm.BitronixTransactionManager.commit(BitronixTransactionManager.java:96)
> at
>
org.drools.persistence.session.SingleSessionCommandService.execute(SingleSessionCommandService.java:258)
> at
>
org.drools.command.impl.CommandBasedStatefulKnowledgeSession.insert(CommandBasedStatefulKnowledgeSession.java:305)
> (Everything works fine if I create my session from the
knowledge
base
> -
> i.e. with no state persistence.)
> Prior to using a rule-based constraint (with no call to
> CommandBasedStatefulKnowledgeSession.insert), the session created
> from
> JPAKnowledgeService worked OK.
> I'm using the default JPA configuration from the Drools
documentation
>
> (persisting to H2 database, etc.).
> Any ideas what might be causing the problem?
> Many thanks,
> Alan
>
>
>
>
> Kris Verlaenen <kris.verlaenen(a)cs.kuleuven.be>
> 23/10/2009 03:00
>
> To
> Rules Users List <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>,
> Alan.Gairey(a)tessella.com
> cc
> Rules Users List <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>
> Subject
> Re: [rules-users] [droolsflow] Code-based constraints for
EventWait
> nodes
> - is this possible?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> No, the constraint of an EventWait node (or the State node in
Drools
> 5.1) can only be rule-based. The reason for this is that the rule
> engine knows when to re-evaluates rules (based on the evailable
> input).
> If you would use a code-based constraint, the engine would have
no
> idea
> when this code constraint might become true (if it was false at
the
> start). Only constant re-evaluation of the code constraint could
> achieve this (which would be tremendously inefficient). Could you
> explain why you would like to have this behaviour? Maybe there is
> an
> alternative way to model this.
>
> To change the value of a variable from inside the process (using
an
> action), simply use kcontext.setVariable(name, value). We do not
> recommend manually changing the value of a process variable from
> outside
> the engine. Again, could you explain why you would like to have
> this
> functionality?
>
> Kris
>
> Quoting Alan.Gairey(a)tessella.com:
>
> > Can the constraint for an EventWait node in a flow be code-based
> > (rather
> > than rule-based)? The Eclipse plug-in (v 5.0.1) doesn't allow
this
> to
> > be
> > specified, unlike say for a Split node, although the relevant
XML
> can
> > of
> > course be edited.
> > Trying to load such a process flow results in a
> NullPointerException,
> >
> > because the constraint is always interpreted as a rule.
> >
> > Ideally what I'd like to do is have an EventWait node where the
> > constraint
> > tests the value of a process variable. This then leads me to
> another
> >
> > question; is there a way of setting the value of a process
> variable
> > via
> > the Drools Flow API?
> >
> > Thanks in advance for any help,
> >
> > Alan
> > Tessella plc
> > 26 The Quadrant, Abingdon Science Park, Abingdon, Oxfordshire,
> OX14
> > 3YS
> > E: Alan.Gairey(a)tessella.com, T: +44 (0)1235 555511, F: +44
(0)1235
> > 553301
> > www.tessella.com Registered in England No. 1466429
> >
> > This message is commercial in confidence and may be privileged.
It
> is
> >
> > intended for the addressee(s) only. Access to this message by
> anyone
> > else
> > is unauthorized and strictly prohibited. If you have received
this
> > message
> > in error, please inform the sender immediately. Please note that
> > messages
> > sent or received by the Tessella e-mail system may be monitored
> and
> > stored
> > in an information retrieval system.
> >
>
>
>
>
> Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm
>
>
Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm
Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm
[attachment "drools-persistence-test.zip" deleted by Alan Gairey/Tessella]
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
9:23 p.m.
Could you send me a simple test project that shows this behaviour? As
it's rather difficult to figure out what's going on without seeing the
actual code ...
Kris
Quoting Anderson vasconcelos <anderson.vass(a)gmail.com>:
Hi everybody.
I Have a flow : [Start] -> [First_HumanTask] -> Split ->
[Second_HumanTask]
or [End].
Someday i had asked about why my flow was stopped (See [droolsflow ]
Flow is
Stoped) . Kris Verlaenem, told to me to use
https://hudson.jboss.org/hudson/job/drools/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/t....
I Created on my Split node this contraint:
*processInstance : WorkflowProcessInstance()
ticketBeanVar : TicketBean( id == (
processInstance.getVariable("ticketId")
) )
eval(ticketBeanVar.isApproved() == true)*
This works for the first instance (I finished the [First_HumanTask] ,
and he
was going to SecondHumanTask), but for the second instance, after i
complete
the [First_HumanTask] , the flow stayed stopped (only for the second
instance). ( If i Change, first the second instance and then first
instance
occurred the same problem (The first instance stayed stopped) )
What's wrong?
Thanks
Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm
5290
days inactive
5299
days old
9 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Alan.Gairey＠tessella.com -
Anderson vasconcelos -
Kris Verlaenen