Re: [weld-dev] [cdi-dev] microbenchmark for CDI performance

On Tuesday, 21 October 2014, 14:56, Jozef Hartinger <jharting(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > For certain combinations of scopes this is a perfectly legal optimization ;-) It's even mentioned in the spec (see 6.5.5). On 10/21/2014 02:46 PM, Mark Struberg wrote: > Folks, you really scare me a bit! > > I debugged into it and for the first BeanManger#getReference I get a proxy. > > But for all other BeanManager#getReference I get the bare metal SimpleBeanWithoutInterceptor WITHOUT ANY PROXY. > Can you confirm this? > If so, then please tell me how you make this Serializable if it gets stored e.g in a Http Session? > > > This is just not conform to the CDI spec I fear. I even consider this a blocker bug... > > LieGrue, > strub > > > >> On Tuesday, 21 October 2014, 14:07, Jozef Hartinger <jharting(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >>> Btw I've run your benchmark locally and observed the following results: >> OWB 1.2.6: 9827ms >> Weld 2.2.5.Final: 20ms >> >> ;-) >> >> I did however tweak the test a bit so that Weld's optimizations can be >> leveraged[1]. I admit that in certain situations (like your test without >> my change) Weld performs worse than it should and this is a good input >> for us. >> >> As for the NPE you observed not sure what is going on there. Perhaps >> WeldContextControl implementation in DeltaSpike is not really thread safe? >> >> Jozef >> >> [1] https://github.com/jharting/cdi-performance/commits/weld >> >> On 10/21/2014 01:43 PM, Jozef Hartinger wrote: >>> Hi Mark, >>> >>> thanks for showcasting your new feature. Great to see OWB getting >>> faster! As for the micro benchmark I suggest that you check out JMH[1]. >>> >>> If you need an input from the Weld team, use weld-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>> >>> [1] http://openjdk.java.net/projects/code-tools/jmh/ >>> >>> On 10/21/2014 11:59 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: >>>> Hi! >>>> >>>> Weld folks, I need some help with a micro benchmark: >>>> >>>> You know we've talked about disk footprint in SE, so I hacked >> together a small microbenchmark and as a side effect we also got what is really >> needed to have CDI running >>>> https://github.com/struberg/cdi-performance >>>> >>>> I'm curious about missing some dependency excludes for Weld. >>>> >>>> could you please run >>>> >>>> $> mvn clean dependency:copy-dependencies -DincludeScope=compile >> -PWeld -Dweld.version=2.2.5.Final >>>> $> ls -al target/dependency/ >>>> >>>> and tell me which dependencies can be without having some CDI >> functionality missing? >>>> Feel free to pimp the pom and ship a pull request. >>>> >>>> >>>> txs and LieGrue, >>>> strub >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> cdi-dev mailing list >>>> cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev >>>> >>>> Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses the >> code under the Apache License, Version 2 >> (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html). For all other ideas provided >> on this list, the provider waives all patent and other intellectual property >> rights inherent in such information. >> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> cdi-dev mailing list >>> cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev >>> >>> Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses the >> code under the Apache License, Version 2 >> (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html). For all other ideas provided >> on this list, the provider waives all patent and other intellectual property >> rights inherent in such information. >>