Re: [rules-users] Salience problems
Thanks very much Wolfgang... that appears to fix it.
Chris
On 28/04/2011 06:51, Wolfgang Laun wrote:
This has indeed been discovered recently, for certain scenarios where
activations were queued in the wrong order after fact modification.
The fix is in
./drools-core/src/main/java/org/drools/core/util/BinaryHeapQueue.java:
--- a/drools-core/src/main/java/org/drools/core/util/BinaryHeapQueue.java
+++ b/drools-core/src/main/java/org/drools/core/util/BinaryHeapQueue.java
@@ -185,7 +185,7 @@ public class BinaryHeapQueue
compareToParent = compare( this.elements[index],
this.elements[index / 2] );
}
-if ( index > 1 && compareToParent < 0 ) {
+if ( index > 1 && compareToParent > 0 ) {
percolateUpMaxHeap( index );
} else {
percolateDownMaxHeap( index );
-W
2011/4/27 Tihomir Surdilovic >
Hi Chris,
since you mention to already have a support license for JBoss
Enterprise BRMS, the best place to ask these types of questions is
at the excellent JBoss Customer Support Portal
(https://access.redhat.com/home) where your question will be
handled under SLAs ensuring timely response and continuous quality
assurance monitoring of the same.
Just FYI, I believe the issue you are mentioning has been fixed in
trunk (see Jira https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBRULES-2942)
which should make the fix available in the next BRMS 5.2 release.
Please confirm with the Red Hat support engineers through a
support case as they are much more knowledgeable on product
releases, and direct any further questions regarding the supported
BRMS bits to them.
If there are any further issues that you would like to see
prioritized for the supported BRMS bits you are using, we will be
glad to work with you through the JBoss Customer Support Portal.
Thanks.
Tihomir
On 4/27/11 2:31 PM, Chris Selwyn wrote:
I am finding that the "salience" feature is acting very erratically.
Some of my rules modify the working memory. So I would like them
to execute before the others that simply read the memory after
modification and report on certain data conditions that are left
after all modifications have happened.
The "modifying" rules have a salience of 5. The "reading" rules
have a salience of 0.
Using the rules logging I can see activations of my modifying
rules being created and activations of the reading rules being
created.
And I can see "reading" rules (with salience 0) being executed
/before/ "modifying" rules (with salience 5) even though no other
activations are being created in between them.
I am not using agenda groups or anything "fancy" like that.
Debugging through the code I can see the "MAIN" agenda group is a
queue organised as heap.
However, the order in which things happen is very
non-deterministic (presumably due to hashing or something like
that) and I am finding it very difficult to actually pin down an
actual 100% reproducible case.
Is there any known problem with the salience mechanism?
I am using JBoss Rules 5.1.0 (with a support licence).
Chris Selwyn
___
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
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1325 / Virus Database: 1500/3601 - Release Date: 04/27/11
___
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] Salience problems
This has indeed been discovered recently, for certain scenarios where
activations were queued in the wrong order after fact modification.
The fix is in
./drools-core/src/main/java/org/drools/core/util/BinaryHeapQueue.java:
--- a/drools-core/src/main/java/org/drools/core/util/BinaryHeapQueue.java
+++ b/drools-core/src/main/java/org/drools/core/util/BinaryHeapQueue.java
@@ -185,7 +185,7 @@ public class BinaryHeapQueue
compareToParent = compare( this.elements[index],
this.elements[index / 2] );
}
-if ( index > 1 && compareToParent < 0 ) {
+if ( index > 1 && compareToParent > 0 ) {
percolateUpMaxHeap( index );
} else {
percolateDownMaxHeap( index );
-W
2011/4/27 Tihomir Surdilovic
> Hi Chris,
> since you mention to already have a support license for JBoss Enterprise
> BRMS, the best place to ask these types of questions is at the excellent
> JBoss Customer Support Portal (https://access.redhat.com/home) where your
> question will be handled under SLAs ensuring timely response and continuous
> quality assurance monitoring of the same.
>
> Just FYI, I believe the issue you are mentioning has been fixed in trunk
> (see Jira https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBRULES-2942) which should make
> the fix available in the next BRMS 5.2 release. Please confirm with the Red
> Hat support engineers through a support case as they are much more
> knowledgeable on product releases, and direct any further questions
> regarding the supported BRMS bits to them.
>
> If there are any further issues that you would like to see prioritized for
> the supported BRMS bits you are using, we will be glad to work with you
> through the JBoss Customer Support Portal.
>
> Thanks.
> Tihomir
>
>
>
> On 4/27/11 2:31 PM, Chris Selwyn wrote:
>
> I am finding that the "salience" feature is acting very erratically.
>
> Some of my rules modify the working memory. So I would like them to execute
> before the others that simply read the memory after modification and report
> on certain data conditions that are left after all modifications have
> happened.
>
> The "modifying" rules have a salience of 5. The "reading" rules have a
> salience of 0.
>
> Using the rules logging I can see activations of my modifying rules being
> created and activations of the reading rules being created.
> And I can see "reading" rules (with salience 0) being executed
> *before*"modifying" rules (with salience 5) even though no other activations
> are
> being created in between them.
>
> I am not using agenda groups or anything "fancy" like that.
>
> Debugging through the code I can see the "MAIN" agenda group is a queue
> organised as heap.
> However, the order in which things happen is very non-deterministic
> (presumably due to hashing or something like that) and I am finding it very
> difficult to actually pin down an actual 100% reproducible case.
>
> Is there any known problem with the salience mechanism?
>
> I am using JBoss Rules 5.1.0 (with a support licence).
>
> Chris Selwyn
>
>
> ___
> rules-users mailing
> listrules-users@lists.jboss.orghttps://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
Re: [rules-users] Salience problems
Hi Chris, since you mention to already have a support license for JBoss Enterprise BRMS, the best place to ask these types of questions is at the excellent JBoss Customer Support Portal (https://access.redhat.com/home) where your question will be handled under SLAs ensuring timely response and continuous quality assurance monitoring of the same. Just FYI, I believe the issue you are mentioning has been fixed in trunk (see Jira https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBRULES-2942) which should make the fix available in the next BRMS 5.2 release. Please confirm with the Red Hat support engineers through a support case as they are much more knowledgeable on product releases, and direct any further questions regarding the supported BRMS bits to them. If there are any further issues that you would like to see prioritized for the supported BRMS bits you are using, we will be glad to work with you through the JBoss Customer Support Portal. Thanks. Tihomir On 4/27/11 2:31 PM, Chris Selwyn wrote: I am finding that the "salience" feature is acting very erratically. Some of my rules modify the working memory. So I would like them to execute before the others that simply read the memory after modification and report on certain data conditions that are left after all modifications have happened. The "modifying" rules have a salience of 5. The "reading" rules have a salience of 0. Using the rules logging I can see activations of my modifying rules being created and activations of the reading rules being created. And I can see "reading" rules (with salience 0) being executed /before/ "modifying" rules (with salience 5) even though no other activations are being created in between them. I am not using agenda groups or anything "fancy" like that. Debugging through the code I can see the "MAIN" agenda group is a queue organised as heap. However, the order in which things happen is very non-deterministic (presumably due to hashing or something like that) and I am finding it very difficult to actually pin down an actual 100% reproducible case. Is there any known problem with the salience mechanism? I am using JBoss Rules 5.1.0 (with a support licence). Chris Selwyn ___ 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] Salience problems
I am finding that the "salience" feature is acting very erratically. Some of my rules modify the working memory. So I would like them to execute before the others that simply read the memory after modification and report on certain data conditions that are left after all modifications have happened. The "modifying" rules have a salience of 5. The "reading" rules have a salience of 0. Using the rules logging I can see activations of my modifying rules being created and activations of the reading rules being created. And I can see "reading" rules (with salience 0) being executed /before/ "modifying" rules (with salience 5) even though no other activations are being created in between them. I am not using agenda groups or anything "fancy" like that. Debugging through the code I can see the "MAIN" agenda group is a queue organised as heap. However, the order in which things happen is very non-deterministic (presumably due to hashing or something like that) and I am finding it very difficult to actually pin down an actual 100% reproducible case. Is there any known problem with the salience mechanism? I am using JBoss Rules 5.1.0 (with a support licence). Chris Selwyn ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
