[wildfly-dev] JSF and JSP activation

[Stuart Douglas]

My patch already checks for UIComponent, which is all the FacesInitializer
does. It only checks deployment classes, there would be no point checking
the faces implementation or it would activate every time.

Stuart

On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 6:57 PM, Guillermo González de Agüero <
z06.guillermo at gmail.com> wrote:

> But it should also checks for the existence of JSF classes, like
> Component. Having them on the classpath enabls JSF, so a classpath scan
> seems (unfortunately) needed to me.
>
> I imagine the received set of classes will contain the JSF implementation
> from the server modules, which implicitly enables JSF in the end.
>
> El mar., 3 abr. 2018 9:24, Stuart Douglas <stuart.w.douglas at gmail.com>
> escribió:
>
>> Looking at that class it seems like the intention is clearly for JSF to
>> only be activated if there is a faces-config.xml, a Servlet mapping or JSF
>> annotations.
>>
>> Should be pretty easy for us to duplicate this logic in a DUP and avoid
>> all the parsing and class loading.
>>
>> Stuart
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Guillermo González de Agüero <
>> z06.guillermo at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> This would be great to have!
>>>
>>> As for JSF activation, note that faces-config.xml nor Faces Servlet are
>>> required anymore. There's also a new @FacesConfig CDI qualifier on JSF 2.3
>>> which substitutes faces-config.
>>>
>>> Looking at FacesConfigInitializer class[1] might provide some more
>>> insight. I've always been puzzled with the "Initializing Mojarra" log when
>>> deploying a JAX-RS only app. The mentioned class supposedly should prevent
>>> JSF from unnecessary initializing. Perhaps some work could be done there
>>> which helps also other runtimes?
>>>
>>> Btw, I think he is already subscribed to the list, but I'm cc'ing Arjan
>>> Tijms since he's the expert on this stuff.
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Guillermo González de Agüero
>>>
>>> [1] https://github.com/javaserverfaces/mojarra/blob/
>>> 4ea1679838f5a6bf6899c282964ff241c020e2f9/impl/src/main/java/
>>> com/sun/faces/config/FacesInitializer.java
>>>
>>> El mar., 3 abr. 2018 a las 3:16, Stuart Douglas (<
>>> stuart.w.douglas at gmail.com>) escribió:
>>>
>>>> Hi Everyone,
>>>>
>>>> At the moment JSP and JSF are being activated for all web deployments,
>>>> which is relatively expensive as this involves quite a bit of class loading
>>>> and TLD parsing.
>>>>
>>>> To give an idea about how much time this is actually taking I did a
>>>> test with a large number of small servlet only deployments both with and
>>>> without JSF, and JSF was accounting for 20% of total deployment time even
>>>> though it was not actually used by any of the deployments.
>>>>
>>>> It also had a significant effect on memory usage, as the parsed TLD's
>>>> are retained, and are quite large.
>>>>
>>>> The root of this issue is that the spec does not define clear
>>>> activation criteria for these technologies. I am proposing that we
>>>> formalise some activation criteria, so that we can avoid activating them if
>>>> they are not required.
>>>>
>>>> JSP:
>>>>
>>>> For JSP I think we can use the following criteria (if either one is
>>>> satisfied JSP is activated):
>>>>
>>>> - The presence of a JSP file mapping in web.xml
>>>> - The presence of JSP files inside the deployment
>>>> - The presence of JSF
>>>>
>>>> One thing that does concern me is that searching for JSP files in this
>>>> way may be expensive in large deployments with lots of web resources. An
>>>> alternate approach may be to try and make JSP lazy, so class loading and
>>>> TLD passing does not happen until a request for a JSP file arrives.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> JSF:
>>>>
>>>> This is much less clear. I think we can use the presence of one of the
>>>> following:
>>>>
>>>> - faces-config.xml
>>>> - The faces servlet in web.xml
>>>> - Something else?
>>>>
>>>> I am not really sure what effect this will have on backwards
>>>> compatibility though. If this is a compatibility problem we could add an
>>>> attribute to the JSF subsystem to restore the old mode.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Does this sound reasonable?
>>>>
>>>> Stuart
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> wildfly-dev mailing list
>>>> wildfly-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
>>>
>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/wildfly-dev/attachments/20180403/67ec0279/attachment.html