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

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. >