Re: [jboss-dev] Further profling: Where should I focus?

I have an older laptop so default for me boots at 29secs. I am sure we can do better, still this is quite an improvement so kudos to everyone! Bill Burke wrote: > i am seeing the same. What I saw pre-merge was that the deployer > sorting brought boot time from 30-33 to 26-28. With the changes I'm > seing 23-24. 10-20% improvement is about where I thought we'd be with > AOP changes. > > Great job Ales, Kabir and company! > > Jaikiran Pai wrote: > >> With the recent upgrade of MC in AS trunk, the "default" config on my >> system now boots in around 23 seconds consistently. Before the upgrade >> it used to take somewhere around 30 to 33 seconds. >> >> -Jaikiran >> >> Kabir Khan wrote: >> >>> I forgot to mention the changes that I did for JBKERNEL-75, i.e. lifecycle: http://community.jboss.org/message/518409#518409 >>> >>> The gist of it is that<lifecycle-configure/> & friends no longer can take an 'expr' attribute (containing a pointcut) and that the 'classes' attribute now must take an annotation. >>> >>> On 5 Jan 2010, at 18:08, Kabir Khan wrote: >>> >>> >>>> The work for this has been committed against https://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/JBKERNEL-75 and https://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/JBKERNEL-74. I have a few things I need to do before the end of the week, if I have any time I'll try to see what impact this has on AS boot time. >>>> On 4 Jan 2010, at 17:28, Kabir Khan wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> I tried starting AS with the updated jboss-aop-mc-int.jar, but ran into problems with dependencies. I'll work on the @JMX stuff next, and try to see if I can update all the dependencies locally in AS once I'm done with that if I have some time before our release >>>>> >>>>> On 4 Jan 2010, at 15:43, Kabir Khan wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> I think I've got the bypassing proxy stuff working now both with and without weaving. I'm re-running some tests before committing. A summary of what I have done; >>>>>> >>>>>> -AOP proxy creation/checks is disabled by default >>>>>> -@EnableAopProxy on a bean forces it to go through the proxy checks >>>>>> -@DisableAOP is deprecated, but will stil be checked if it is present and the new annotations are not present >>>>>> >>>>>> A few points: >>>>>> -if a bean is not woven but has constructor aspects you want invoked, the bean needs the @EnableAopProxy annotation >>>>>> -If a bean's class is woven it can have aspects, so we will always check the AOP dependencies for that bean. This will only happen if loadtime weaving was turned on (or compile-time weaving was used) AND the bean matches some pointcuts, so it should not be an issue in practice. >>>>>> >>>>>> Once I've tidied up I'll commit to MC trunk, and try putting it into AS trunk before moving on to replacing the mechanism for AOP lifecycle. >>>>>> >>>>>> On 24 Dec 2009, at 12:29, Kabir Khan wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> I've made a start on this, but doubt I'll finish it before I finish for Christmas. I am deprecating the @DisableAOP annotation. By default aop proxies will be disabled, but can be enabled with @EnableAopProxy. Lifecycle callbacks will be enabled by default (and I'll come up with a quicker way of determining if they should apply), but can be disabled using the @DisableAopLifecycle annotation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> One issue that I need to look into is that there are a bunch of tests that run with weaving enabled, so I need to see how they fare with this new setup. Since if they are woven, aspects will apply, and if those aspects have dependencies we need those in AOPDependencyBuilder. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 24 Dec 2009, at 10:47, Ales Justin wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> +1, disable AOP wherever possible. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I guess we can go the other way now, disabled by default + make >>>>>>>> lifecycle completely OO. >>>>>>>> We should then definitely see good improvement. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And I'd even dare say if you want @JMX, why not just >>>>>>>>> implement it the old fashion with MBean interfaces? It's simple and fast :-) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You got that right, it's simple, probably too simple. ;-) >>>>>>>> I think one would still like to use the real power of POJO and IoC and >>>>>>>> just register it to MBeanServer for some simple admin/config. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I dare to say I think you need to re-read this article :-) >>>>>>>> * http://java.dzone.com/articles/a-look-inside-jboss-microconta-0 >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> jboss-development mailing list >>>>>>>> jboss-development(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> jboss-development mailing list >>>>>>> jboss-development(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development >>>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> jboss-development mailing list >>>>>> jboss-development(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> jboss-development mailing list >>>>> jboss-development(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> jboss-development mailing list >>>> jboss-development(a)lists.jboss.org >>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> jboss-development mailing list >>> jboss-development(a)lists.jboss.org >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> jboss-development mailing list >> jboss-development(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development >> > _______________________________________________ jboss-development mailing list jboss-development(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development