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

[Dimitris Andreadis]

I have an older laptop so default for me boots at 29secs. I am sure we can do better, still 
this is quite an improvement so kudos to everyone!

Bill Burke wrote:
> i am seeing the same.  What I saw pre-merge was that the deployer 
> sorting brought boot time from 30-33 to 26-28.  With the changes I'm 
> seing 23-24.  10-20% improvement is about where I thought we'd be with 
> AOP changes.
> 
> Great job Ales, Kabir and company!
> 
> Jaikiran Pai wrote:
>> With the recent upgrade of MC in AS trunk, the "default" config on my 
>> system now boots in around 23 seconds consistently. Before the upgrade 
>> it used to take somewhere around 30 to 33 seconds.
>>
>> -Jaikiran
>>
>> Kabir Khan wrote:
>>> I forgot to mention the changes that I did for JBKERNEL-75, i.e. lifecycle: http://community.jboss.org/message/518409#518409
>>>
>>> The gist of it is that <lifecycle-configure/> & friends no longer can take an 'expr' attribute (containing a pointcut) and that the 'classes' attribute now must take an annotation.
>>>
>>> On 5 Jan 2010, at 18:08, Kabir Khan wrote:
>>>
>>>> The work for this has been committed against https://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/JBKERNEL-75 and https://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/JBKERNEL-74. I have a few things I need to do before the end of the week, if I have any time I'll try to see what impact this has on AS boot time.
>>>> On 4 Jan 2010, at 17:28, Kabir Khan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I tried starting AS with the updated jboss-aop-mc-int.jar, but ran into problems with dependencies. I'll work on the @JMX stuff next, and try to see if I can update all the dependencies locally in AS once I'm done with that if I have some time before our release
>>>>>
>>>>> On 4 Jan 2010, at 15:43, Kabir Khan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I think I've got the bypassing proxy stuff working now both with and without weaving. I'm re-running some tests before committing. A summary of what I have done;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -AOP proxy creation/checks is disabled by default
>>>>>> - at EnableAopProxy on a bean forces it to go through the proxy checks
>>>>>> - at DisableAOP is deprecated, but will stil be checked if it is present and the new annotations are not present
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A few points:
>>>>>> -if a bean is not woven but has constructor aspects you want invoked, the bean needs the @EnableAopProxy annotation
>>>>>> -If a bean's class is woven it can have aspects, so we will always check the AOP dependencies for that bean. This will only happen if loadtime weaving was turned on (or compile-time weaving was used) AND the bean matches some pointcuts, so it should not be an issue in practice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Once I've tidied up I'll commit to MC trunk, and try putting it into AS trunk before moving on to replacing the mechanism for AOP lifecycle.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 24 Dec 2009, at 12:29, Kabir Khan wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've made a start on this, but doubt I'll finish it before I finish for Christmas. I am deprecating the @DisableAOP annotation. By default aop proxies will be disabled, but can be enabled with @EnableAopProxy. Lifecycle callbacks will be enabled by default (and I'll come up with a quicker way of determining if they should apply), but can be disabled using the @DisableAopLifecycle annotation. 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One issue that I need to look into is that there are a bunch of tests that run with weaving enabled, so I need to see how they fare with this new setup. Since if they are woven, aspects will apply, and if those aspects have dependencies we need those in AOPDependencyBuilder. 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 24 Dec 2009, at 10:47, Ales Justin wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> +1, disable AOP wherever possible. 
>>>>>>>> I guess we can go the other way now, disabled by default + make 
>>>>>>>> lifecycle completely OO.
>>>>>>>> We should then definitely see good improvement.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And I'd even dare say if you want @JMX, why not just 
>>>>>>>>> implement it the old fashion with MBean interfaces? It's simple and fast :-)
>>>>>>>> You got that right, it's simple, probably too simple. ;-)
>>>>>>>> I think one would still like to use the real power of POJO and IoC and
>>>>>>>> just register it to MBeanServer for some simple admin/config.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I dare to say I think you need to re-read this article :-)
>>>>>>>> * http://java.dzone.com/articles/a-look-inside-jboss-microconta-0
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> jboss-development mailing list
>>>>>>>> jboss-development at lists.jboss.org
>>>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> jboss-development mailing list
>>>>>>> jboss-development at lists.jboss.org
>>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> jboss-development mailing list
>>>>>> jboss-development at lists.jboss.org
>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> jboss-development mailing list
>>>>> jboss-development at lists.jboss.org
>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> jboss-development mailing list
>>>> jboss-development at lists.jboss.org
>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> jboss-development mailing list
>>> jboss-development at lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development
>> _______________________________________________
>> jboss-development mailing list
>> jboss-development at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development
>