[rules-users] RE: rules-users-Does 4.0MR2 support dsl?
Mark Proctor
mproctor at codehaus.org
Fri May 11 00:13:16 EDT 2007
The DSL system is enabled in MR2, it should be mostly backwards
compatible and has a number of improvements - but be aware of the
existing upgrade versions, like the no boxing of primitives. Give it a
try and let us know how it goes.
Mark
Sikkandar Nawabjan wrote:
> Mark,
> I did see the MR2 release in your site. we need to use dsl.
> Is there any change in this release as far as dsl is concerned.
> we already used version3.0.6 and created all dsl.
> can we use the rules as it is in the new release especially DSL?
> Please let me know.
> Thanks and Regs,
> Basha
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: rules-users-bounces at lists.jboss.org on behalf of rules-users-request at lists.jboss.org
> Sent: Thu 4/12/2007 8:02 PM
> To: rules-users at lists.jboss.org
> Subject: rules-users Digest, Vol 5, Issue 36
>
>
>
> Send rules-users mailing list submissions to
> rules-users at lists.jboss.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> rules-users-request at lists.jboss.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> rules-users-owner at lists.jboss.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of rules-users digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Subject: Re: [rules-users] DSL is Dropped? (Mark Proctor)
> 2. Re: Add/remove objects from working memory are very CPU
> intensive (Mark Proctor)
> 3. Re: Add/remove objects from working memory are very CPU
> intensive (Einat Idan)
> 4. Object in parameter (fakhfakh ismail)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 13:33:42 +0100
> From: Mark Proctor <mproctor at codehaus.org>
> Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [rules-users] DSL is Dropped?
> To: Rules Users List <rules-users at lists.jboss.org>
> Message-ID: <461E2726.2060705 at codehaus.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> M3, so it won't be in this upcoming release, but the one after. there
> will be partial DSL support in M2, at the engine level, but not at the
> IDE level.
>
> Mark
> Sikkandar Nawabjan wrote:
>
>> Mark,
>> I did see your reply on one of the question that DSL is not enable for
>> M1. In which version it will be enable. we plan to use milestone.
>> Is it going to be enable or DSL feature going to be removed?
>> Thanks and Regs,
>> Basha
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rules-users mailing list
>> rules-users at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>>
>>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-users/attachments/20070412/0075c6cb/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 13:34:52 +0100
> From: Mark Proctor <mproctor at codehaus.org>
> Subject: Re: [rules-users] Add/remove objects from working memory are
> very CPU intensive
> To: Rules Users List <rules-users at lists.jboss.org>
> Message-ID: <461E276C.3060906 at codehaus.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> I'm just finalising the last bit, so any day now. with any luck over the
> weekend or monday.
>
> Mark
> Einat Idan wrote:
>
>> Michael,
>> Thanks for your reply.
>>
>> When is the next milestone expected?
>>
>> On 4/12/07, *Michael Neale* <michael.neale at gmail.com
>> <mailto:michael.neale at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> definately upgrade to latest 3.0.x version (3.0.6).
>>
>> Also, those methods are were most of the work happens, its a
>> common misconception that all the work happens lazily when you
>> call "fire all rules" but that is not the case, as you assert each
>> object, it propagates through the RETE network, so that is normal
>> to see the time spent there for lots of data.
>>
>> you can also try the trunk version if you like, its certainly got
>> some improvements, but the next milestone (if you can wait) will
>> be more worth your time.
>>
>> Michael.
>>
>> On 4/12/07, *Einat Idan* <idan.einat at gmail.com
>> <mailto:idan.einat at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I encountered a serious performance problem using Jboss Rules
>> 3.0.1. The process was executed on a pretty strong machine - a
>> DL350 4 cpu RedHat machine. The process was using about 100%
>> CPU and I used a profiler to see what's going on:
>>
>> My application adds/removes objects to/from the working memory
>> of a stateful rule session quite intensively (2000-3000 per
>> sec), though the intensive actions were related to a single
>> rule session and only a few extra rule sessions existed
>> simultaneously. It turned out that about 7-10% of CPU was
>> consumed per a single add/remove operation. More specifically,
>> ReteooWorkingMemory.doRetract() and
>> ReteooWorkingMemory.doAssertObject() were the major consumers.
>> I would expect a basic operation like this to be significantly
>> less CPU intensive.
>>
>> Would you please provide more information, is my benchmark too
>> ambitious? Do you recommend an upgrade to version 3.0.6? 3.1?
>> If so, please elaborate what were the performance improvements.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Einat Idan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rules-users mailing list
>> rules-users at lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users at lists.jboss.org>
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rules-users mailing list
>> rules-users at lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users at lists.jboss.org>
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rules-users mailing list
>> rules-users at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>>
>>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-users/attachments/20070412/a706a02f/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 16:01:56 +0300
> From: "Einat Idan" <idan.einat at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [rules-users] Add/remove objects from working memory are
> very CPU intensive
> To: "Rules Users List" <rules-users at lists.jboss.org>
> Message-ID:
> <b365cc480704120601s6322e320n5985259f33224720 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> Thanks, these is good news!
> My product is planned to be GA in 4-5 months. When do you recommend shifting
> from 3.0.1 (that's the version I currently use) to 3.1? When do you expect
> 3.1 to be a stable version?
>
> Best regards,
> Einat
>
> On 4/12/07, Mark Proctor <mproctor at codehaus.org> wrote:
>
>> I'm just finalising the last bit, so any day now. with any luck over the
>> weekend or monday.
>>
>> Mark
>> Einat Idan wrote:
>>
>> Michael,
>> Thanks for your reply.
>>
>> When is the next milestone expected?
>>
>> On 4/12/07, Michael Neale <michael.neale at gmail.com > wrote:
>>
>>> definately upgrade to latest 3.0.x version (3.0.6).
>>>
>>> Also, those methods are were most of the work happens, its a common
>>> misconception that all the work happens lazily when you call "fire all
>>> rules" but that is not the case, as you assert each object, it propagates
>>> through the RETE network, so that is normal to see the time spent there for
>>> lots of data.
>>>
>>> you can also try the trunk version if you like, its certainly got some
>>> improvements, but the next milestone (if you can wait) will be more worth
>>> your time.
>>>
>>> Michael.
>>>
>>> On 4/12/07, Einat Idan <idan.einat at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I encountered a serious performance problem using Jboss Rules 3.0.1.
>>>> The process was executed on a pretty strong machine - a DL350 4 cpu RedHat
>>>> machine. The process was using about 100% CPU and I used a profiler to see
>>>> what's going on:
>>>>
>>>> My application adds/removes objects to/from the working memory of a
>>>> stateful rule session quite intensively (2000-3000 per sec), though the
>>>> intensive actions were related to a single rule session and only a few extra
>>>> rule sessions existed simultaneously. It turned out that about 7-10% of CPU
>>>> was consumed per a single add/remove operation. More specifically,
>>>> ReteooWorkingMemory.doRetract() and ReteooWorkingMemory.doAssertObject()
>>>> were the major consumers. I would expect a basic operation like this to be
>>>> significantly less CPU intensive.
>>>>
>>>> Would you please provide more information, is my benchmark too
>>>> ambitious? Do you recommend an upgrade to version 3.0.6? 3.1? If so,
>>>> please elaborate what were the performance improvements.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Einat Idan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> rules-users mailing list
>>>> rules-users at lists.jboss.org
>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rules-users mailing list
>>> rules-users at lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rules-users mailing list
>> rules-users at lists.jboss.orghttps://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rules-users mailing list
>> rules-users at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>>
>>
>>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-users/attachments/20070412/2dcacdc0/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 16:31:22 +0200 (CEST)
> From: fakhfakh ismail <ismail_info2005 at yahoo.fr>
> Subject: [rules-users] Object in parameter
> To: rules-users at lists.jboss.org
> Message-ID: <20070412143122.664.qmail at web27305.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Hello,
> First sorry for my bad English
> when I execute this rule an error is affiched.
> when
> user1: BnUserValue(name : name)
> and
> ActiviteOut : BnNodeValue()
> and
> lien: BnEdgeValue(id : id, OutBnNode : OutBnNode)
>
>
> then
> System.out.println("oui ça marche");
>
> end
> the problem is when I remove the object OutBnNode : OutBnNode the parameter there's not error I want to is this error exist because I can't set parameter with type not String, Integer, Date, ....
> Best regard
>
> ---------------------------------
> Découvrez une nouvelle façon d'obtenir des réponses à toutes vos questions ! Profitez des connaissances, des opinions et des expériences des internautes sur Yahoo! Questions/Réponses.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-users/attachments/20070412/a712bf05/attachment.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
> End of rules-users Digest, Vol 5, Issue 36
> ******************************************
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-users/attachments/20070511/27f13938/attachment.html
More information about the rules-users
mailing list