[weld-dev] A significantly negative article on Weld

[Mark Struberg]

Sorry to drop in here, but I think there might be a conceptional problem. Why do we pickup each and every class as @Dependent? In most cases this is either unnecessary or even leads to AmbiguousResolutionExceptions. 

I'd strongly favour to drop this and instead only pickup a bean as managed if it has a scope annotation or a few other very limited cases. This would also highly increase startup time imo...

LieGrue,
strub


--- On Wed, 11/10/10, Stuart Douglas <stuart.w.douglas at gmail.com> wrote:

From: Stuart Douglas <stuart.w.douglas at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [weld-dev] A significantly negative article on Weld
To: "Pete Muir" <pmuir at bleepbleep.org.uk>
Cc: "Samuel Mendenhall" <samuel.mendenhall at gmail.com>, "Weld Dev List" <weld-dev at lists.jboss.org>
Date: Wednesday, November 10, 2010, 9:12 AM


I just ran some very quick and dirty profiling with the latest Jbossas and the results are as follows:





 
 
 
 
 
  Beans
  Startup Time
  Startup (WELDX)
  Memory Usage
  Mem Usage(no beans.xml)
 
 
  No Deployment
  17
  

  

  135
 
 
  20
  20
  22
  149
  

 
 
  500
  24
  26
  178
  

 
 
  2000
  35
  43
  265
  

 
 
  5000
  87
  104
  440
  210
 







So jboss uses 135Mb normally, and 210Mb when a war with 5000 classes is deployed that does not have beans.xml. When you add weld to the mix the memory usage jumps by 230Mb to 440Mb.
According to yjp WeldClassImpl (and it's retained WeldMethod/Field etc) is responsible for 120Mb of this. Other major culprits seem to be TypeSafeObserverResolver at 24Mb (as it is caching ProcessAnnotatedType<Bean*> * 5000) and TypeSafeDecoratorResolver at 13Mb. Not much else stands out.
The beans used where quite simple (1 injection point, 7 fields, 6 methods), no normal scoped beans, no interceptors, not decorators. Weldx does have a notable effect on startup time, which I will also investigate.
I don't think it will be to hard to significantly reduce this. Reducing the number of HashMap's in WeldClassImpl (and replacing some with ImmutableArraySet) should give a significant gain, and clearing the TypeSafeObserverResolver and TypeSafeDecoratorResolver after startup should also save around 40Mb. I'll try and do some work this week and see how much I can get this down.
Stuart
On 10/11/2010, at 8:48 AM, Pete Muir wrote:
I'm about to post a blog about this.

On 9 Nov 2010, at 21:43, Lincoln Baxter, III wrote:

Are these points valid?

If so, are we aware of them? Just trying to raise awareness to what people are saying out in the world. I have noticed a relatively high memory footprint in Seam Forge, using Weld SE.

http://www.dzone.com/links/r/cdi_a_major_risk_factor_in_java_ee_6.html

Is there anything we can address here and attempt to demystify this blog?

-- 
Lincoln Baxter, III
http://ocpsoft.com
http://scrumshark.com
"Keep it Simple"
_______________________________________________
weld-dev mailing list
weld-dev at lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-dev


_______________________________________________
weld-dev mailing list
weld-dev at lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-dev


-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
weld-dev mailing list
weld-dev at lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-dev