On 2010-07-22 14:26, Ray Chen wrote:
Hi Regis,
You mean init these providers is slow, right? But actually we should
not init unnecessary providers.
I added some info in our code as following and you can see init these
provider takes most of the time:
<code>
...
long start = System.currentTimeMillis();
p = (Provider) Class.forName(providerClassName.trim(), true, cl).newInstance();
System.out.println("init " + p.getName() + "takes " +
(System.currentTimeMillis()-start) + " ms");
providers.add(p);
providersNames.put(p.getName(), p);
long start2 = System.currentTimeMillis();
initServiceInfo(p);
System.out.println("init services of " + p.getName() + "takes " +
(System.currentTimeMillis() - start2) + " ms" );
...
</code>
And the output is:
init DRLCertFactorytakes 226 ms
init services of DRLCertFactorytakes 6 ms
init Cryptotakes 1 ms
init services of Cryptotakes 1 ms
init HarmonyJSSEtakes 0 ms
init services of HarmonyJSSEtakes 1 ms
init BCtakes 204 ms
init services of BCtakes 11 ms
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 2:01 PM, Regis<xu.re...@gmail.com> wrote:
init DRLCertFactorytakes 226 ms
init BCtakes 204 ms
It seems provider itself spent a lot of time.
Have you compared time of following code against RI and Harmony with the same
provider class name?
(Provider) Class.forName(providerClassName.trim(), true, cl).newInstance();
If there were still huge gaps, I think it's not caused by way we load providers,
maybe there are other performance hole in some places. I agree that the way
loading providers still have room to improve, but we need to find out and shoot
the most outstanding issue first.
--
Best Regards,
Regis.
