[weld-dev] A significantly negative article on Weld

[Clint Popetz]

If you go that route, you lose the ability to inject instances of
third party classes without defining a @Produces method.  That may be
preferable to the existing problems caused by default @Dependents, but
I wanted to point it out for clarity.

-Clint

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Mark Struberg <struberg at yahoo.de> wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> weld-dev mailing list
> weld-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-dev
>



-- 
Clint Popetz
http://42lines.net
Scalable Web Application Development