[cdi-dev] microbenchmark for CDI performance

[Romain Manni-Bucau]

hmm should it pass TCKs then? ;) /me is joking


Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau
http://www.tomitribe.com
http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com
https://github.com/rmannibucau


2014-10-21 15:24 GMT+02:00 Mark Struberg <struberg at yahoo.de>:
> Hi!
>
> Yes, I missed that you changed the test target. It is now not testing proxies but how fast ApplicationScoped beans injected into other ApplicationScoped beans work.
>
> I agree that this might be a valid performance optimisation, but people should be aware that this is done. Have seen quite a few 'ServiceHolder' with getters to the actual services in projects where CDI gets used in companion with legacy frameworks.
>
> I will add this as another use case to the test suite.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
>
>> On Tuesday, 21 October 2014, 14:56, Jozef Hartinger <jharting at redhat.com> 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 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.
>>>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.