Chris,
It is probably related. Can you isolate that in a self contained test
and send me? If it is proprietary code, you may send direct to me instead of
the list and I will not disclose. If we can fix that today, we may be able
to include it in final release as a bug fix.
[]s
Edson
2007/7/18, Chris West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Edson,
After further investigation, I found that I was still manually setting the
property "drools.shadowProxyExcludes" to exclude my proxies from being
shadowed (even thought they would not have been shadowed anyway in
4.0.0MR3. After removing this property, the latest snapshot from the
trunk seems to shadow my proxy based facts. However, I crash later in my
code with the following exception:
Exception in thread "main" java.lang.ClassCastException:
ascc.status.FlightOpsStatusBoard$LaunchRecoveryStatusShadowProxy
at
org.drools.base.ascc.status.AirPlanStatusBoard$SortieStatus$getState.getValue(Unknown
Source)
at org.drools.base.ClassFieldExtractor.getValue (
ClassFieldExtractor.java:94)
at
org.drools.base.evaluators.ObjectFactory$ObjectEqualEvaluator.evaluate(
ObjectFactory.java:103)
at org.drools.rule.LiteralRestriction.isAllowed(
LiteralRestriction.java:61)
at org.drools.rule.LiteralConstraint.isAllowed(LiteralConstraint.java
:82)
at org.drools.reteoo.AlphaNode.assertObject(AlphaNode.java:122)
at org.drools.reteoo.CompositeObjectSinkAdapter.propagateAssertObject(
CompositeObjectSinkAdapter.java:308)
at org.drools.reteoo.ObjectTypeNode.assertObject(ObjectTypeNode.java
:168)
at org.drools.reteoo.Rete.assertObject(Rete.java:166)
at org.drools.reteoo.ReteooRuleBase.assertObject (ReteooRuleBase.java
:190)
at org.drools.reteoo.ReteooWorkingMemory.doInsert(
ReteooWorkingMemory.java:70)
at org.drools.common.AbstractWorkingMemory.update(
AbstractWorkingMemory.java:1209)
at org.drools.common.AbstractWorkingMemory.update (
AbstractWorkingMemory.java:1129)
at ascc.rules.AbstractRulesCoordinator.statusChanged(
AbstractRulesCoordinator.java:324)
at ascc.rules.AbstractRulesCoordinator.processSend(
AbstractRulesCoordinator.java:300)
at csf.engine.AbstractModelComponent.processSend(
AbstractModelComponent.java:213)
at csf.engine.SimulationEngine$SchedulerThread.run(
SimulationEngine.java:680)
I see the name LaunchRecoveryStatusShadowProxy above, which indicates a
cast is trying to occur that cannot. Could this be related to the change
you made to shadow proxies? If not, any ideas what might be occuring? I
don't have a simple test case for this problem.
Thanks,
-Chris West
On 7/18/07, Chris West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Edson,
>
> I downloaded and built the latest from the trunk of the repository. I
> applied this new build toward my test case, and it seemed to fix the
> problem. However, when I applied it to my real project, it still exhibits
> the problem. If I discover more information about the problem I'll let you
> know.
>
> Thanks,
> Chris West
>
> On 7/17/07, Edson Tirelli < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Chris,
> >
> > I found and developed an intermediate solution that shall work for
> > your proxies.
> > If it is not possible to create a shadow fact for a class that is
> > asserted (because the class is final or whatever), the engine goes up in the
> > class hierarchy, looking for a class or interface for which is possible to
> > create the proxy, but that still matches all ObjectTypes available in the
> > rule base matched by the original class. The analysis is a bit complex,
> > specially because new rules with new object types can be dynamically added
> > to the rule base, but I believe the solution will work for JDK proxies and
> > the most common proxy frameworks out there, that usually don't proxy
> > multiple unrelated interfaces at once.
> >
> > So, I ask you please to get latest snapshot from the repository and
> > try it out for your use case and report back to the list the results, since
> > seems there are a few other people using similar things.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Edson
> >
> >
> > 2007/7/17, Chris West < [EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > >
> > > Is that still true if the equals() and hashcode() methods are only
> > > based on the identity fields of the object (which cannot change)?
> > >
> > > -Chris West
> > >
> > > On 7/17/07, Mark Proctor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > you only need to use modifyRetract if the object is inserted. The
> > > > reason for this is if you change field values on your facts we will not
be
> > > > able to remove them from our various internal hashmaps; thus the need to
> > > > remove first prior to any changes, then make the changes and then
insert it
> > > > again. We can't allow users to just call update() as we have no idea
what
> > > > the old values where, thus we cannot find the objects in our hashmaps.
> > > >
> > > > Mark
> > > > Chris West wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Mark,
> > > >
> > > > Using modifyRetract and modifyInsert seems to fix the problem (at
> > > > least in my test case I finally created). I'll try this on my real
code.
> > > >
> > > > My only concern here is that it puts the burden on the rule author
> > > > to know whether things are being shadowed or not. For shadowing that is
> > > > explicitly turned off this is ok. But for implicit non-shadowing based
on a
> > > > class being final, this is not at all obvious to the rule auther.
> > > >
> > > > Is there any way to have this hidden such that I can still call
> > > > "update" but have it use "modifyRetract" and "modifyInsert" instead?
> > > >
> > > > Also, I'm curious why I have to call modifyRetract before I start
> > > > modifing the object, since the engine does not know about my
modifications
> > > > anyway until I call update or modifyInsert? By the way, I was unable
to use
> > > > the block setter approach in the rule consequence due to not having set
> > > > methods for modifying my objects.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > -Chris West
> > > >
> > > > On 7/17/07, Mark Proctor <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > If you do not have shadow facts you cannot use the update()
> > > > > method, it will leave the working memory corrupted. Instead you must
manage
> > > > > this yourself, before you change any values on the object you must
call
> > > > > modifyRetract() and after you hvae finished your changes ot hte
object call
> > > > > modifyInsert() - luckily if you are doing this in the consequence you
can
> > > > > use the MVEL modify keyword combined with the block setter and it
does this
> > > > > for you:
> > > > > modify ( person ) { age += 1, location = "london" }
> > > > >
> > > > > Mark
> > > > > Chris West wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hello,
> > > > >
> > > > > With prior versions of JBoss Rules (3.0.5) I have been using JDK
> > > > > generated dynamic proxies as facts, and they have been working fine.
> > > > > However, after upgrading to JBoss Rules 4.0.0MR3, I cannot seem
> > > > > to get the dynamic proxies to work as facts. It seems that even
though a
> > > > > rule fires that changes a field on the proxy, a second rule that
should not
> > > > > be activated after the update still fires.
> > > > >
> > > > > According to the JDK javadoc documentation, dynamic proxies are
> > > > > created as final. My assumption is that JBoss Rules is not creating
Shadow
> > > > > facts for these since they are final. After reading the JIRA at
> > > > > http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/JBRULES-960, I now am
> > > > > questioning what the effect of not using shadow facts is on the
engine. The
> > > > > relevant part of that is:
> > > > >
> > > > > "The problem is that SpringAOP is generating a proxy whose
> > > > > methods equals() and hashCode() are "final". As drools must either
override
> > > > > these methods in the shadow proxy or not shadow the fact at all, I'm
> > > > > disabling shadow proxy generation for this use case.
> > > > > It is really important to note that if you are asserting
> > > > > SpringAOP proxies as facts into the working memory, you will not be
able to
> > > > > change any field value whose field is constrained in rules or you may
incur
> > > > > in a memory leak and non-deterministic behavior by the rules engine.
> > > > > Unfortunately there is nothing we can do about, since when SpringAOP
makes
> > > > > the methods equals and hashcode final, we can't override them anymore
and as
> > > > > so, we can't shadow them."
> > > > > [ Show ยป <http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/JBRULES-960> ]
> > > > > Edson
Tirelli<http://jira.jboss.com/jira/secure/ViewProfile.jspa?name=tirelli>
> > > > > [02/Jul/07 03:29 PM] The problem is that SpringAOP is generating
> > > > > a proxy whose methods equals() and hashCode() are "final". As drools
must
> > > > > either override these methods in the shadow proxy or not shadow the
fact at
> > > > > all, I'm disabling shadow proxy generation for this use case. It is
really
> > > > > important to note that if you are asserting SpringAOP proxies as
facts into
> > > > > the working memory, you will not be able to change any field value
whose
> > > > > field is constrained in rules or you may incur in a memory leak and
> > > > > non-deterministic behavior by the rules engine. Unfortunately there is
> > > > > nothing we can do about, since when SpringAOP makes the methods
equals and
> > > > > hashcode final, we can't override them anymore and as so, we can't
shadow
> > > > > them.
> > > > >
> > > > > Although I'm not using SpringAOP, I believe my facts are not
> > > > > being shadowed.
> > > > >
> > > > > Is it true that not using shadow facts may lead to
> > > > > non-deterministic behavior? Prior to shadow facts, the engine seemed
to
> > > > > handle it. Any chance of reverting back to the old style of truth
> > > > > maintenance in the case of not using shadow facts.
> > > > >
> > > > > I apologize if I'm not on the right track here. My only test
> > > > > case for my problem is the entire application right now, so I cannot
offer
> > > > > it for discussion. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > -Chris West
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > rules-users mailing list
> > > > > rules-users@lists.jboss.org
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > rules-users mailing list
> > > > > rules-users@lists.jboss.org
> > > > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > ------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > rules-users mailing list
> > > > rules-users@lists.jboss.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > rules-users mailing list
> > > > rules-users@lists.jboss.org
> > > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > rules-users mailing list
> > > rules-users@lists.jboss.org
> > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Edson Tirelli
> > Software Engineer - JBoss Rules Core Developer
> > Office: +55 11 3529-6000
> > Mobile: +55 11 9287-5646
> > JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rules-users mailing list
> > rules-users@lists.jboss.org
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> >
> >
>
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
--
Edson Tirelli
Software Engineer - JBoss Rules Core Developer
Office: +55 11 3529-6000
Mobile: +55 11 9287-5646
JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
