I've filed a JIRA for this issue
http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/JBRULES-1114
___
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>It's a good point about using yield(). I did use this originally, but
>for some reason it generated fewer errors than using some arbitrary
>sleep values.
>From discussions or reading I did years back I vaguely recall, yield() isn't
>required to do anything.
If the VM/OS observes that the same t
Yeah, me either. Welcome to Java!:)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dean Jones
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 9:09 AM
To: Rules Users List
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Rule compilation errors under heavy load
Hi Thomas,
On 7/16/07, Hehl
Hi Thomas,
On 7/16/07, Hehl, Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Couldn't you use yield() to generate a context-switch? It would only happen
in that spot, but should produce some good testing.
It's a good point about using yield(). I did use this originally, but
for some reason it generated few
t: Re: [rules-users] Rule compilation errors under heavy load
On 7/14/07, Mark Proctor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We are going to need an integration test, to reproduce this, can you
> supply one?
>
Okay, I've just converted the simple test that I added earlier to a
Ju
On 7/14/07, Mark Proctor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We are going to need an integration test, to reproduce this, can you
supply one?
Okay, I've just converted the simple test that I added earlier to a
Junit test. The test is not guaranteed to fail if there are thread
safety errors, just very li
We are going to need an integration test, to reproduce this, can you
supply one?
Mark
Dean Jones wrote:
Hi Mark,
On 7/13/07, Mark Proctor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think I've alread fixed this in trunk - when dealing with
add/removing
stuff I now do a block syncronisation on the pkgs in
Hi Mark,
On 7/13/07, Mark Proctor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think I've alread fixed this in trunk - when dealing with add/removing
stuff I now do a block syncronisation on the pkgs instance. If that test is
clean, we should add it to the list of integration tests, to track
regressions.
I
I think I've alread fixed this in trunk - when dealing with add/removing
stuff I now do a block syncronisation on the pkgs instance. If that test
is clean, we should add it to the list of integration tests, to track
regressions.
Mark
Edson Tirelli wrote:
Dean
Thanks, we will investiga
Dean
Thanks, we will investigate that asap.
[]s
Edson
2007/7/12, Dean Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Hi Edson,
On 7/12/07, Edson Tirelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Is it possible for you to provide a test case capable of reproducing
the
> problem?
>
I've written a quick test cas
Hi Edson,
On 7/12/07, Edson Tirelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Is it possible for you to provide a test case capable of reproducing the
problem?
I've written a quick test case, which is attached. When numberOfThreads==1,
everything compiles okay. When numberOfThreads==100, I get function
c
Is it possible for you to provide a test case capable of reproducing the
problem?
At the same time, I would suggest you to not follow such approach in your
application. Compilation is an extremely heavy process and should not be
done for each request. The ideal approach is to pre-compile (for
12 matches
Mail list logo
