Group Title: Department of Computer and Information Science and Engineering Technical Reports
Title: Parallel rule processing in a distributed object environment
CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00095446/00001
 Material Information
Title: Parallel rule processing in a distributed object environment
Series Title: Department of Computer and Information Science and Engineering Technical Report 99-014
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Lee, Minsoo
Su, Stanley Y. W.
Lam, Herman
Publisher: Department of Computer and Information Science and Engineering, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Copyright Date: 1999
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00095446
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

1999382 ( PDF )


Full Text









Parallel Rule Processing

in a Distributed Object Environment

Technical Report TR99-014

iii-,o Lee, Stanley Y. W. Su and Herman Lam
Database Systems R&D Center
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 U.S.A.


Abstract I ., use of rules is becoming a major trend for adding active .i.,..7'i,, to passive ,,,i. ... Al-
though adding the rule processing .,!.,1i.'', into a ,.i '.' is highly desirable, the effect on i" .''. ..i...... can
be detrimental. To solve the i f" ..'....... problem that is introduced by the overhead of rule i' '..' "'..
parallel processing techniques would be most .... ;. ".' In order to ,..f. .. 1 'i, these techniques, an
easy yet f ...... i [,,1/ L "1"' "i. ', ", method for various rule execution structures is needed, along with the
algorithm to schedule their execution. We have developed a i!' .,' T' ';'' ..i'-' language and its accompa-
"..',.. GUI tool for '.. ''f.,"." events and various parallel rule execution structures associated with distributed
objects. D'IT ... ,i from the traditional event-condition-action rules used in the existing active databases, the
rule model used in this work separates event /'. .i' ... from rule /"' '17., .... Events are I., ......'. ..,ll
linked to various rule structures by i! '.,, . We have also implemented a rule processor for scheduling and
processing the parallel rule execution structures. Parallel processing of i. '. .'. .'.. rule structures can improve
the f' ....I!' ". of an active integrated i,!., . of distributed objects.

Keywords: rules, parallel processing, distributed objects


1 Introduction

Recently, rule processing has been used effectively in the areas of active databases, expert systems,
workflow systems, and automated control systems as a paradigm to embed active capabilities into
passive systems .; 7. Rules enhance a system by using a high-level declarative specification of
knowledge which otherwise will have to be written in program code. I Ir -i rules can automatically
be executed when a specific event occurs or some data condition is satisfied. Rules can be used to
automatically perform security and integrity constraint checking, alert systems or users of important
situations, enforce business policies and regulations, etc.
Sl-t existing active database systems adopt the Event-Condition-Action (ECA) paradigm. Ac-
tive database research and prototype systems such as HiPAC [2], ODE [3], Sentinel [1] follow this
paradigm. An ECA rule consists of three parts: event, condition and action. Iir semantics of an
ECA rule is: when an event occurs, the condition is checked. If the condition evaluates to true, the
action is performed. Otherwise, the action is not performed. Condition-Action (CA) rules, which
do not have the event specification part, are also widely used in expert systems [5].
Although rules can easily add active capabilities to a system, the additional time it takes to
process rules can lead to a serious performance problem. For example, checking if rules can be fired
and then actually carry out the rule execution can complicate and lengthen the processing time of a









simple transaction. As a solution to this performance problem, parallel processing of rules is widely
used in expert systems [5]. But the parallelism provided by these systems is quite limited. Expert
systems mainly focus on parallelizing the condition checking, and users can not easily specify the
intended parallel execution of rules using priority-based specifications used by some systems, such
as Sentinel [1].
In this paper, we present our work on parallel rule processing in a distributed object environment.
In particular, we present the rule specification part of an extended object model, which provides
an easy yet powerful way of specifying rule execution structures. An algorithm for scheduling
the parallel processing of these rule structures has been developed, based on which a parallel rule
processor was implemented for use in a CORBA environment. Rule processing in a distributed ob-
ject environment can provide many benefits such as supporting inter-operability among distributed
objects -ii Parallel rule processing in a distributed environment can be especially effective since
distributed objects are highly independent and promote concurrent processing.
'I organization of the remainder of this paper is as follows. Section 2 provides an overview
of our rule model. Section 3 explains how various rule execution structures can be specified. In
Section 4, the scheduling algorithm and the implementation of the parallel rule processor in the
distributed object environment are presented. Finally, Section 5 gives our conclusion.


2 Overview of the Rule Model

Our rule model is designed specifically for supporting parallel rule processing and the interoperation
of distributed objects. 'I key features that differentiate our rule model from other conventional
ECA rule models are as follows. Fi -t, the event definition and rule definition are separated. Events
are defined as objects, and although various ways of raising events are possible, the subscribers of
events see a uniform event object which is independent of how it is raised. Rules also do not
directly reference event objects. Rather, they are tied to events through intermediate structures
called ', ,/. I I, separation of event and rule definitions provides the flexibility of linking events
to rules and fits well with object processing in a distributed environment where distributed objects
can independently operate and have an open interface to one another. Second, events can carry any
number and any types of parameters and can be delivered in synchronous or asynchronous modes.
I I!i- makes it possible for a distributed object to define a new type of event without any restriction,
whereas many existing systems that support events have a default set of parameters, which is tied
to an event when it is defined, and only support the asynchronous mode of delivery. Third, a set of
rules that are triggered by an event can be executed following a rule structure specification, which
gives the order of rule execution. In conventional ECA rules, a rule is specified by an event, a
condition and an action. Some systems allow the specification of a priority value for each rule. If
multiple rules contain the same event, the occurrence of the event will fire all these rules in the
order of their priorities. I I-i priority-based approach does not support more complex execution
rule structures. Furthermore, if rules are recursively fired (i.e., when a set of rules fired by an event
recursively fire the same set of rules), using priority values to schedule the processing of rules can
create serious semantic problems. Our rule model allows complex rule structures to be explicitly
specified by rule designers to control the sequential, parallel, and/or synchronized orders of rule
execution. Parallel processing of these rule structures enhances the efficiency of their execution.
Fourth, in our model, rules can make reference to distributed objects and call the methods of these
objects. I Ihi- allows rules to be deployed in a more general environment than a single centralized
system, and to be used to model the relationships and/or constraints among multiple distributed
objects.










Our rule model assumes an underlying object model, which supports the common object-oriented
concepts such as classes, objects, attributes/properties, methods and inheritance found in all the
existing object models. I Ir rule model can be considered as an add-on to the underlying object
model. It consists of three components: events, rules and triggers. An event is an occurrence of
something of interest to others. It could be things such as an execution of a method of a Retailer
object, the signaling of the failure of a disk, a reminder of a deadline, etc. An example of a method-
associated event updateproductevent is shown below. I Ir updateproductevent is associated
with the UpdateProduct method of the Retailer class and has the coupling mode of before. I In!-
means that this event will be raised before the execution of the method. I Ir event will carry the
productid, price, and date parameters given to the UpdateProduct method.

IN Retailer
VElvT update_product_event(String product_id,int price,Date date)
TYPE method
CLII- FLil iI,'_II E before
OFERA[TICil UpdateProduct(String product_id,int price,Date date)

A rule is a high-level specification of a granule of control and logic, which is traditionally im-
plemented by a piece of executable code. A rule in our system composes of condition, action, and
alternative action specifications. When a rule is triggered for processing, the condition of the rule
is first evaluated. If the condition is true, the statements in the action specification are executed.
Otherwise, the statements in the alternative action part are executed. A rule has an interface,
which specifies what parameters are used in the rule. I Ir actual values of these parameters are
provided by an event that triggers the rule at run time. An example of a simple rule specification
is shown below.

RiLE check_price_change(int price,String product_id)
r[ES,'RIF TILll if the price is less than $100,
notify the sales department
RuiLEVAR existing SalesDept sales_dept("S'l LESE[EFT 1223");
C'Lill'IT Lil price < 100
ACT I I0 sales_dept.MakeAdvertisement(product_id,price);

1 Ir rule checks the price change that occurs, and if the price is less than $100, the sales de-
partment is notified to create a sales advertisement. I Ir RULEVAR clause declares the variables
that are used in the rule body. I Ir existing keyword in RULEVAR indicates that the variable
salesdept is to be bound to an existing SalesDept object in the distributed object environment.
I Ir SalesDept object should have the ID of '\LESDEl' I 1223.
Now that events and rules have been specified separately, triggers can be specified to connect
events with rules. A '' "./p. I basically specifies which events can trigger which rules or rule struc-
tures. It also allows the specification of composite events and maps the parameters between event
parameters and rule parameters. An important functionality of the trigger is its capability to spec-
ify the structure of a parallel rule execution. As will be shown in later sections, a rule structure
carries more semantics than a set of unrelated or prioritized rules. Here, we shall first give a simple
example of a trigger that makes use of the example event and rule given above.

T'IL, ER' update_product_trigger(String p0,int iO)
I R I ,3, E ET Elii update_product_event (pO, iO, dO)
RI.iLESTRUC check_price_change(i0, pO)

I Ir TRIGGER clause specifies the name of the trigger and the trigger parameters. I Ir trigger
parameters are used to map the event parameters to the rule parameters. I Ir TRIGGEREVENT
clause specifies the events that can trigger the set of rules specified in the RULESTRUC clause.
Several events can be OR-ed (i.e., connected by a disjunctive operator), which means that the oc-
currence of any one of the events can trigger the processing of the rule structure. I I RULESTRUC









clause specifies the set of rules to be executed in a specified structure. I I!i- simple example contains
only one rule that is to be triggered. Complex rule structures will be given later. I Ii parameters
of the event are renamed as p0,i0,d0 and are mapped to the trigger parameters. I Ir trigger
parameters p0,i0 are again mapped to the rule parameters i0,p0.


3 Specification of Rule Execution Structures

A general rule structure can be specified by three main constructs: sequential execution, parallel
execution, and synchronization.
Sequential Execution: Rules that need to be executed one after another in a certain order can
be specified using the sequential execution construct. A sequential execution construct is specified
by using a '>' operator. I I, rule on the left-hand side of the operator is executed first and followed
by the rule on the right-hand side. I Ir following example shows a sequence of four rules to be
executed in the order of R1, R2, R3, and R4:

R1 > R2 > R3 > R4

Parallel Execution: Some rules can be executed in parallel to maximize the throughput of a rule
processing system and minimize the response time of a transaction execution that triggers rules.
To specify the parallel execution of rules, the ',' operator is used. I Ir following example shows
that rules R1, R2, R3 and R4 are to be executed in parallel.

(R1, R2, R3, R4)

Synchronization: Although a majority of rule executions are expected to be either sequential or
tree structured, more complex structures that involve synchronization points may also be needed
to express the inter-relationships among rules. I Ir, i are two types of synchronization points: the
AND synchronization point and the OR synchronization point. A rule may not be allowed to start
its execution until the completion of several other rules, which are called the predecessors of the
rule. A synchronization point where a rule needs to wait for the completion of all of its predecessors
is called an AND synchronization point. For example, an AND synchronization point, at which
rule R4 will start its execution only after the completion of R1, R2 and R3 is given below:

AND (R1, R2, R3) > R4

I lr OR synchronization point needs only the completion of a subset of the predecessors. I Ir
size of the subset can be explicitly specified within the brackets beside the OR keyword. Assume
that rule R8 has three predecessors, R5, R6, and R7, and rule R8 must wait for two out of the three
predecessors to complete before it can start its execution. I Ir specification would be as follows:

OCR[2] (R5, R6, R7) > R8

I Ir -i AND and OR synchronization points can be nested to specify more complicated execution
structures.
Complex rule execution structures and rule alias: In order to express more complex rule execu-
tion structures, an entire structure can be broken into pieces. 1 Ir pieces are separated by ';' and
each piece is specified using the concepts of fan-in and fan-out. Fan-in occurs at a synchronization
point (at R8 and R9 shown in Finlii, 1) and is considered critical for the correctness of a rule
execution structure. Fan-out occurs when a rule has multiple descendants, such as rule R3 has
descendants R5 and R6. A fan-out may be specified using a single structure (e.g., R3 > (R5, R6)),
or by the individual relationships between the predecessor and descendants in separate pieces (i.e.,
R3 > R5; R3 > R6). I Ir complex rule structure in Fi&,i- 1 can be specified as :










Event



R1 R2 R3


R4 R5 R6
SOR[1] AND


R7 R8 R9

Fi nii 1: An example complex rule execution structure



R1 > R7 ;
R2 > R4 ;
R3 > (RF, R6)
OR [1] ( R4, R. ) > R8 ;
AND ( R5, R6 ) > R9

I Ii sequential sequences such as R1 > R7 and R2 > R4 are specified as before. A fan-out is used
to specify that, after the execution of R3, rules R5 and R6 can start their execution independently.
Two fan-in sequences are also specified. After R4 or R5 finishes its execution, R8 can then start;
and after R5 and R6 finish their execution, R9 can then start its execution. Any kind of complex
rule structure can be decomposed using this fan-in and fan-out mechanism. We note here that a
rule may participate in many rule structures, which are triggered by many different events. I Ir
execution of a rule may post an eventss, which in turn triggers other rule structures. ('I.,ij_,oj
trigger specifications at run-time can change the behavior of a distributed object system.
A rule may appear more than once in a single rule structure. For example, an integrity rule
can be executed before a set of rules and then again after the set of rules to ensure that rule
triggering does not compromise the data integrity. In this case, a rule alias mechanism is needed
to differentiate between these different occurrences of the same rule.

3.1 Event Parameter Mapping to Multiple Rules
An event which triggers a rule structure should be able to pass its parameters to its rules. I hi,
requires a mapping between the event parameters and the rule parameters. I h!- mapping is given
in the trigger specification. A trigger has a set of parameters that are type compatible with both the
event parameters and the rule parameters. 1 hr triggering events can pass their event parameters
through the trigger parameters to the rule parameters. An example mapping is shown below.

I'h,,]LEF:R sample_trigger(int vl,int v2,classX v3)
ITRI',,EREVEII El(vl,v2,tl,v3) or E2(v2,v3,vl)
RAIILESTRUC Rl(vl,v2)>R2(v3,vl)>R3(vl,v2)

I Il example shows a trigger with three parameters vl, v2, and v3. 1 Ir types of the parameters
are integer, integer and classX, respectively. El and E2 are the two triggering events. 1 Ir event
parameters are mapped to the trigger parameters by sharing the same name for the parameters.
For instance, the parameter vl of El is mapped to the parameter vl of the trigger. \.Ii. that
parameter tl of event El is not mapped to any trigger parameter. I Ir parameter mapping from









the trigger to the rules is done once again in the same way by sharing the names between the trigger
parameters and the rule parameters. R1 uses the parameters vl and v2. R2 uses the parameters
v3 and vl, etc. In our present implementation, the parameters are passed from events to rules by
value.


4 Implementation of the Parallel Rule Processor

Although implementing the rule processor in C or C++ may have a better performance, we consider
platform independence as one of our major goals to provide rule processing in the distributed object
environment and selected Java as the implementation language. Because using an interpreted
language such as Java increases the overhead of rule processing, supporting parallel rule processing
becomes even more important.
Parallel Processing: Multi-threading with Java threads is used to implement the parallel exe-
cution of rules. When a trigger is fired, a thread is spawned for each rule in the trigger and the
rules are executed in parallel via the concurrent execution of threads. When executing rules on
a single system, the performance gain is limited by the number of physical processors available.
I 1In-, depending on the workload, several configurations of the rule processor are possible. A single
rule processor can be running on a single multiprocessor system or several rule processors, each of
which can be running on a machine where each rule processor is dedicated to the processing of a
subset of the triggers, or additional slave processors (i.e., rule executors) can be connected to each
of the rule processors to perform only rule executions that are requested by the rule processor.
I Ii synchronization among threads is done by a scheduling algorithm, which uses a queue having
two Java synchronized methods: put and get. 1 Ir put method puts the rule index (which is used
to identify a rule within a trigger) and the results of a rule that finished its execution into the
queue. I Ih ir it calls the notifyAll method to wake up all the threads that are waiting for an item
in the queue. I Ir get method retrieves an object from the queue that contains information about
a completed rule. If the queue is empty at this time, the get method calls the waitfor method
and sleeps until it is waked up.
Data Structure: I Ir scheduling algorithm uses data structures generated from trigger spec-
ifications, which are input through a trigger editor. For each rule, the data structures store the
number of predecessors that each rule needs to wait for before it can start its execution. Also, for
each rule, a list of the succeeding rules (i.e., the rules that are to be executed directly after the
rule in the sequence) are stored. Other data structures that are generated by trigger specifications
involve data structures that hold the parameter mapping information.
Once these data structures are generated at the trigger definition time, the scheduling algorithm
interprets the data structures at run-time and performs the necessary operations to schedule the
rule execution.
Scheduling Algorithm : When a triggering event occurs, it is forwarded to a rule processor,
which can trigger a rule structure. I I. high-level description of the scheduling algorithm is shown
in Fi sii 2 and is described below. I Ii scheduling algorithm used in our system is based on the idea
that, when the predecessors of a rule S complete their execution, rule S can start its execution in
parallel with other rules. I I, i. !. i., whenever a rule is finished, its successor rules (Ss) are checked
one by one to see if its (other) predecessors have finished their execution. If so, the successor rule
S is executed, otherwise it must wait for the completion of its predecessors.
Run-time Architecture : I Ir run-time architecture for parallel rule processing in a distributed
object environment is shown in Fiuii 3. I Ir Rule Processor is a CORBA server implemented in
an Orbix environment [8]. It is registered as a consumer of the CORBA Event Service, subscribing










Start all rules with no predecessors;
While (all rules in the rule structure are not finished)
{
Wait for any rule to finish and put its rule index
into the queue;
Denote finished rule as ruleA;
For each successor (denoted as ruleS) of ruleA do,
{
Increase terminatedpredecessorcount of ruleS;
Check the predecessor condition of ruleS
to see if ruleS can execute;
If so, start ruleS with appropriate parameters
and execute in parallel;
}


Finlii 2: Scheduling algorithm for the execution of a rule structure



to events of interest that can trigger rules. A distributed CORBA object can post an event, which
is transferred through the event service to the appropriate subscribers of the event. I Ir. rule
processor, as a subscriber of those events that have been defined in trigger specifications, will be
notified of the occurrence of an event. Once notified, the rule processor looks up its corresponding
triggers and starts executing each trigger. I Ir, rules specified in the trigger are executed in parallel.
During execution, a rule can call the methods of other distributed objects. I Ini-, several rules may
call the methods of different distributed objects in parallel.


5 Conclusion

We have provided a specification language that allows rule structures of different complexity to
be specified. I Ir scheduling algorithm and the implementation of the rule processor as an Orbix
server has also been presented. 'I Ir notable features of the implemented rule processor, including
those not mentioned above, can be summarized as follows. Fi;-l, the rule processor can schedule
the execution of complex rule structures that are composed of sequential, parallel, AND synchro-
nization, and OR synchronization constructs. Second, rules can activate distributed objects and
thus perform distributed actions. Third, rules are compiled into Java code, which provides plat-
form independence. Fourth, rules can be dynamically changed and reloaded during run-time of the
system, which makes the system more flexible. Fifth, grouping of rules is supported to allow the
I ij.,1 ,li; /disabling groups of rules. Sixth, rules can return data values to the method call that posts
an event. Lastly, an accompanying GUI Editor and a : i1 t,.it. i l.., r. have been developed to
assist in specifying, editing, and storing events, triggers, and rules. I Iir implemented rule processor
clearly demonstrates its capability to add active features into a distributed object environment, and
the efficiency that can be gained by parallel rule processing. Our planned future work includes the
expansion of parallel rule processing into other distributed object environments, such as RMI and
enterprise JavaBeans. Also, additional transaction-related features will be included.
























Trigger N


Finii 3: Framework for Parallel Rule Processing in the Distributed Object Environment



References

[1] S. C(1,.!.,'..-., thy, E. Anwar, L. 1.iii-, and D. f-li, Design of Sentinel: an Object-Oriented
DBMS with Event-Based Rules. Information and Software T I... *1,i.,. ;'i(9):555-568, London,
Sept. I'l' 1

[2] U. Dayal, et al. I Ir HiPAC Project: Combining Active Databases and Timing Constraints.
ACM Sigmod Record, 17(1):51-70, : 1.,, ii 1988.

[3] N. H. Gehani and H. V. Jagadish. Ode as an Active Database: Constraints and Triggers. Proc.
17th Int'l Conf. on Very Large Data Bases, pp. 327-.;.;I-, Barcelona, Spain, Sept. 1991.

[4] J. Kiernan, C. de : l.iiii '. .ill, and E. Simon. : l.,.i:ij, Deductive Databases a Practical Tech-
nology: A Step Forward. Proc. of the ACM SIGMOD Int'l Conf. on I.1 .i... 11, i of Data, pp.
237-246, Atlantic City, NJ,: l..y 1990.

[5] J.N. Amaral and J. Ghosh. A Concurrent Architecture for Serializable Production Systems.
IEEE ..I. on Parallel and Distributed Processing, 7(12): 1 -'i.- 1280, Dec., l'I'11

SS.Y.W. Su, H. Lam, et. al. An Extensible Knowledge Base i l.,.i., i, 1it System for Sup-
porting Rule-based Interoperability among Heterogeneous Systems. Proc. of the Conference on
Information and Knowledge .[l/.I .. i: pp. 1-10, Baltimore, MD, Nov. 28 Dec. 2, 1''i,-

[7] S.Y.W. Su, R. Jawadi, P. ('Cl !iliini, Q. Li, and R. N.i .;,. OSAM*.KBMS/P: A Parallel,
Active, Object-oriented Knowledge Base Server. IEEE I .i. on Knowledge and Data Engi-
neering, 10(1):55-75, Jan./Feb. 1998.

[81 OrbixWeb Programmer's Reference. IONA Technologies PLC, Dublin, Ireland, 1997.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs