| AW: [jwt-dev] AW: Regarding fix for excessive GDI object usage |
|
Hi Ravi, yepp, currently you
are specifying the variable layoutData twice and the second time it overwrites
the first time: rule Action2Action { from
input : jwtSource!"model::processes::Action" to
action : jwtTarget!Action ( name
<- input.name, icon
<- input.icon, targetexecutiontime
<- input.targetexecutiontime, realizes
<- input.realizes, --Function performedBy
<- input.performedBy, --Role executedBy
<- input.executedBy, --Application inputs
<- input.getInputs(), --Data outputs
<- input.getOutputs() ), layoutData
: jwtTargetView!LayoutData ( initialized
<- true, Says that the rule
called Action2Action takes each Action from the jwtSource and generates 1) an Action the jwtTarget with variable name
action 2) a LayoutData in the jwtTargetView file with
variable name layoutData Adding ), layoutData
: jwtTargetView!LayoutData ( initialized
<- true, viewid <- 'Business', now overwrites the
existing variable layoutData before it is written in the file. Of course, you
need again a jwtTargetView!LayoutData, but this one can of course have a
different variable name (as you are not referencing it again. Changing the variable
name layoutData to layoutData2 should fix this. See also http://wiki.eclipse.org/ATL/User_Guide
for further information about ATL. Good luck and best
regards, Florian Von:
jwt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:jwt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag
von RAVI K. THAPLIYAL Hi Chris, I’ve been able
to update the asm but I don’t think I’ve modified the atl correctly
as the layout data is now being generated for the Business view only. Could you
please have a look at the atl file attached and explain how do I duplicate the
layout data for both the views correctly? I’m not
familiar with the atl syntax at all. I’ve simply added another layoutData
transformation op with viewid <- 'Business' within every rule that was doing
it for ‘Technical’. I guess, instead of appending, I’m
overwriting the ‘Technical’ layout with the ‘Business’
layout data. Regards, Ravi From: jwt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:jwt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Christian Saad Hi Ravi, atl files have to be
compiled into asm files before execution. The converter project has been
assigned an ATL project nature so that each time you save the atl file, the asm
file should be updated automatically. You could check if this is really the
case. If not, simply create a new ATL project and use it to modify the atl file
and copy the automatically generated asm file back to the converter when
you’re done. Regards, Chris Von: jwt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:jwt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von RAVI K. THAPLIYAL Hi Florian, I tried modifying the
JWT60toJWT70.atl as you explained but it didn’t work for me. I’ve
attached the modified file for reference. While going through the source code I
found that ATLTransformation makes use of ASMEMFModel and loads the .asm file
instead of the .atl as below: // launch JWT2JWT_TransfoResource =
ATLTransformation.class
.getResource("resources/transformations/" + "JWT" + sourceVersion
+ "toJWT" + targetVersion + ".asm");//$NON-NLS-1$ I guess I need to
modify JWT60toJWT70.asm too or update it somehow. Am I correct? Regards, Ravi From: Florian Lautenbacher
[mailto:florian.lautenbacher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Hi Ravi, hi Chris, >>#1 >>I think it
should be possible to adapt the ATL transformation in the converter >>(converter/internal/resources/transformations/JWT60toJWT70.atl)
so that layoutdata is created for both views at the same >>time but
Florian has probably more knowledge in that matter. Maybe the method described
in #2 could help you here. Of course, creating
the layoutdata for all existing views is not an issue. Currently the layout
data is only generated once with the view “Technical” assigned. If
you have several views, then simply the same rule in the ATL-transformation can
be copied and the term “Technical” could be replaced by
“Business” or others (depending on the views that you have). If you
have some problems here, just let me know. >>#4: >>As far as I
know there haven’t been any substantial changes to aspects in 0.7
(apart from bugfixes of course ;) ). Also, apart >>from removing
view data (point, dimension, reference, referenceedge), the meta model
hasn’t changed. Yes, there are
several bug fixes concerning aspects which Marc and I have been working on. If
you experience some problems such as the ones described below, I guess
Marc is the best to answer: >>I’ve noticed that in 0.7
I’m not being able to attach new aspects to any action node by the
right-click > New Child context menu option. Existing aspects however are
being displayed correctly. The Manage Profiles tab info is identical between
the two versions. >>I’ve observed that in 0.7,
the child descriptors passed to
ActionBarContributor.generateCreateChildActions() do not include
AspectCommandParameter(s) that get passed for every Aspect defined via
extensions in 0.6. Best regards, Florian Von: RAVI K. THAPLIYAL
[mailto:RAVI.THAPLIYAL@xxxxxxxxxx] Hi Chris, Thanks for your
reply. Since, I didn’t
hear from you for long I started porting my app to JWT 0.7 in parallel. Now,
I’ve been able to get my App compile and start without errors and
currently I’m identify the code changes required to work with 0.7 and its
overall impact on testing. I just have some concerns and would like to hear
your thoughts on the following: #1. Our customized
New Workflow wizard creates a 0.6 version file which when opened in the editor
is automatically converted to 0.7. If we stick to creating files in 0.6 and
suppress the file format change information dialog is there a way to have the
same layout info for both technical and business views. Currently, it would ask
if the user wants to import it from technical view which would confuse the
users. #2. If we would like
to keep the layout algorithms out of the picture and keep it as simple as
– what you’ll draw is what you’ll get. Can we auto sync the
layout info between tech and biz views without any prompts? Idea is to keep it
exactly like 0.6 in spite of having a separate _view file. #3. Even if we stick
to creating 0.6 workflow file (when a new workflow is created and when an
existing workflow is checked out from db) the check in workflow op that saves
it to db would now have to parse 3 files. We can’t maintain multiple view
layouts in db so would really want to keep the layout info in sync between
views without any prompts. Please point towards any API that would help us do
all this behind the scenes. #4. Unlike other
integrators of JWT like AgilPro and Scarbo, our App makes heavy use of Aspects.
Do you foresee any major changes required for them to work with 0.7? In
addition to separating the meta model out of the editor has it also been changed
that may impact Aspects that were developed on 0.6. I personally feel
that we should move to 0.7 rather than doing it later and ending up doing
maintenance for two architecturally very different versions. So, I would really
appreciate your thoughts on the above concerns. Regards, Ravi From: Christian Saad
[mailto:christian.saad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Hi Ravi, sorry for the late
answer, unfortunately I was not available during the holidays :( The fix for the GDI
leak addressed two main issues: On the one hand the fonts and colors which are
created in the PreferenceWrappers but these should be fixed once the patch for
these has been included. To make sure that the cached resources are released
when the last editor is closed you should also update the following method in
the GeneralHelper:
public static void
deregisterEditor(WEEditor ed)
{
editorinstances.remove(ed);
// dispose gid resources
if (editorinstances.size()
== 0)
{
Plugin.getDefault().getImageRegistry().dispose();
FontPreferenceWrapper.disposeFonts();
ColorPreferenceWrapper.disposeColors();
}
} The other major leak
was due to inconsistent use of the ImageFactory. You could try to replace the
ImageFactory with the new one but I’m not sure if this will help a lot
since many methods used to create their own images instead of using the
factory. It is very difficult to provide a patch for this since it affects many
files. A possible approach would be to search for getImage() calls in the code
and make sure they are redirected to the factory but I guess this would also
require a certain amount of work. I’m really
sorry that I can’t provide you with a complete solution here, but the
major internal changes which happened during the implementation of 0.7.0 make
it almost impossible to extract a useful patch which works with the previous
version. If you still have the time I would therefore suggest to nevertheless
consider a move to 0.7.0 since from an external point of view, the
compatibility with 0.6.0 shouldn’t be too difficult to achieve. Regards, Chris Von: RAVI K. THAPLIYAL
[mailto:RAVI.THAPLIYAL@xxxxxxxxxx] Hi Chris, I’ve verified
that the problem really is due to the leaked GDI resources. As you rightly
said, once the app crosses 10,000 GDI objects it simply closes itself.
I’m sending you a sample .workflow and as it uses aspects its
.workflow_conf file too. The file when opened
uses around 1450 GDI objects of which only around 70 are disposed when the
editor is closed. The number is too high when compared to JWT 0.7 which opens
and closes around 300 handles only for the same file after conversion and
creation of the required .workflow_view file of course. I’ve verified
that I’m using the patched files that you shared with me. I would
appreciate if you could test the attached workflow at your end and share your
findings. Regards, Ravi From: Christian Saad
[mailto:christian.saad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Hi Ravi, I’m suprised
that this didn’t fix the problem for you since the fonts accounted for
most (I guess >60%) of the lost GDI resources. Could you take a look in the
task manager to see if the behavior is really caused by a too big number of
those (the screen usually goes blank once 10000 is reached). Regards, Chris Von: RAVI K. THAPLIYAL
[mailto:RAVI.THAPLIYAL@xxxxxxxxxx] Hi Chris, I tried using the patched versions of font
and color preference wrappers but they haven’t helped me much. With
the kind of complex workflows that are being opened, my RCP app’s
lifetime is 10 mins tops. Due to release constraints, I’m
unable to switch to JWT 0.7. We really can’t afford to have another test
cycle with the kind of timelines we have right now. So, I would really
appreciate if you could list down all the files that have been patched in 0.6
and the ones that have been newly introduced in 0.7 to fix this issue. As I already have prior experience with
image registries etc. I’m trying to see if I can patch my copy of 0.6 by
merging code from 0.7 if required. I know the meta model has been separated
from the editor and that might make this task near impossible but I need to
have the files involved to verify this and then convince my superiors about the
same. Thanking you in anticipation. Regards, Ravi
|