Re: [wildfly-dev] JSF and JSP activation
by Guillermo González de Agüero
Thanks Arjan, I'll have a look and will let you know (outside of this list,
if WF is not affected).
El mar., 3 abr. 2018 20:49, arjan tijms <arjan.tijms(a)gmail.com> escribió:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 6:48 PM, Guillermo González de Agüero <
> z06.guillermo(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>> So if the application is not actually using JSF, that's all it does. And
>>> there should not be any additional overhead. If the application does use
>>> JSF indeed, there's overhead and that's indeed too much overhead. I've been
>>> trying on reducing this, for instance by using a pre-parsed internal
>>> faces-config file.
>>>
>> But the implementation is on the classpath, so there will always be some
>> JSF related class there. Stuart changes will fix this, but Payara suffers
>> from this same problem as far as I saw. In fact I had this issue on my
>> queue on pending reports.
>>
>
> The Mojarra classes itself are not scanned in the case of a Java EE
> application server.
>
> Specifically for Mojarra and Payara (Micro) I ran quite a few tests and
> compared performance with a JSF class present in the application and
> without. The difference was immediate obvious, so that clearly indicates a
> lot of work is not done if the application doesn't contain a JSF class. You
> could of course try to double check this.
>
> I'm not sure which issue you saw, but if there's indeed an issue I would
> be all to happy to try to solve it.
>
> Maybe you are confused with the admin console though? The Payara admin
> console uses JSF, so you'll see it being initialising for that, but not for
> the application (it prints out the context for which it initialises, so you
> could take a look at that).
>
> >The fact is FacesInitializer also looks for a lot of annotation, but I
> see you duplicated that checks so it should be perfectly valid.
>
> It doesn't so much look explicitly for annotations. It used to do that,
> but now it just uses the set of classes passed into the
> ServletContainerInitializer. Of course the declaration of the classes the FacesInitializer
> is interested in means that the Servlet container may need to do some
> extra work, but since a Servlet container already scans all application
> classes (to find @WebServlet etc), this is maybe not that much extra work.
>
> For JSF 3.0 we should maybe only look for @FacesConfig and
> faces-config.xml, but that's still a bit out into the future.
>
> Kind regards,
> Arjan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>> See specifically this commit:
>>> https://github.com/javaserverfaces/mojarra/commit/0129ffe2aadb4e87f46d094...
>>>
>>> @Stuart, I wonder what the overhead is that you see when the application
>>> is not using JSF, and which test application you are actually using. Could
>>> it be that you somehow have a FacesServlet or faces-config.xml etc anyway?
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Arjan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 7:50 AM, Guillermo González de Agüero <
>>> z06.guillermo(a)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/4ea1679838f5a6bf6899c2829...
>>>>
>>>> El mar., 3 abr. 2018 a las 3:16, Stuart Douglas (<
>>>> stuart.w.douglas(a)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(a)lists.jboss.org
>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
6 years
- 1
- 0
Using Stax in WildFly and the javax.api module
by Guillaume Smet
Hi,
As JAXB will be removed from JDK 11, we are moving to Stax for parsing the
Hibernate Validator XML descriptors.
One issue is that the javax.xml.stream.api module, which is nicely
isolated, typically depends on javax.xml.namespace for the QName class.
Thus all the modules depending on the javax.xml.stream.api also depends on
javax.api (which exposes imageio, swing and so on). See the staxmapper or
the xts modules for instance.
I'm wondering if we should better isolate the javax.xml features to avoid
that situation?
Not a big fan of exposing the Swing and ImageIO classes to HV.
Thoughts?
--
Guillaume
6 years
- 2
- 2