[jboss-dev] Further profling: Where should I focus?

Brian Stansberry brian.stansberry at redhat.com
Thu Dec 31 01:14:50 EST 2009

On 12/30/2009 06:22 PM, Bill Burke wrote:
> Ales Justin wrote:
>>> IMO, we should just remove AOP entirely as our customers probably are
>>>   not going to use it.
>> This is exactly what will happen - remove AOP - if we disable it by
>> default and re-write lifecycle handling to plain OO, w/o any costly
>> pointcut matching.
>> The only cost is lookup for potential @AOPEnable on the bean.
>> While we still keep optional cool feature of creating an AOP proxy for a
>> bean.
>>> For @JMX just write another deployer and do it
>>>   regularly.  Similarly with lifecycle and other features.
>> Regularly?
>> If you mean to register an mbean, that is actually not what we/users want.
>> See my response to Dimitris this morning.
> There probably is a way to make AOP irrelevant to boot performance, but
> you need to consider pluses and minuses nevertheless...Everybody
> (thousands) of users are effected by boot performance, while only a
> handful care about @JMX, etc.

True, but we use @JMX all over the place. I expect trying to get rid of 
it and having all our POJO services register themselves in JMX will end 
up sucking in most of the AS team, which will be a significant 
distraction from EE 6 work. Personally I think we should explore further 
whether this can be optimized before going down that path.

>> While this could be a deployer feature, I think it's far more complex to
>> do it than tie it into the bean's lifecycle.
>> e.g. scan for @JMX, remembering the handle, checking if it's overridden
>> for an instance, ... while we already have all this implemented in
>> bean's lifecycle handling, it's just not optimized yet.
>> What do you mean by "similarly with lifecycle and other features"?
>> @JMX, @JNDI, @Password, ... is the lifecycle callback.
> All these annotations that trigger AOP.  Are they under the jboss
> namespace?  Controlled by us?


> You might want to consider meta-annotations and turning @AOPEnabled into
> one. i.e.
> @AOPEnabled
> public @interface JMX {...}
> You look at the bean's class annotations, then look at those annotations
> for @AOPEnabled.
>>> Again, if you want to take this route, I'd be happy to do the work.
>>> I am willing to spend the next month on boot performance and AS.
>> Excellent.
>> So will I and the rest of MC team.
> Well, I need to know what I could do to help.  Is Kabir fine on the AOP
> stuff?  VFS3 seems to be ok?  What about removing JMX Kernel Backward
> Compatibility and upgrading services to MC?  I can tackle any of these
> problems with little guidance I just don't want to be duplicating any
> work (like with the deployer sorting).

Would converting mbean services help boot time, assuming that most still 
need to expose a JMX interface, i.e. @JMX? Don't get me wrong, this is 
something we need to do, but if your goal is to help boot perf I'm not 
sure how much it will help.

The JIRA for the boottime improvements we discussed in July is 
https://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/JBAS-7329. What are we doing on 
limiting the scanning of our own classes? I see a number of deployments 
without a jboss-scanning.xml.

Alexey, could you use any help on XB optimization?

Brian Stansberry
Lead, AS Clustering
JBoss by Red Hat

More information about the jboss-development mailing list