[cdi-dev] microbenchmark for CDI performance

[Jozef Hartinger]

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 at redhat.com> 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 at 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 at 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 at 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.
>>