Profiling results show RI's Class.forName() takes much less time than
Harmony ones. It may caused by harmony load too much classes, maybe we need
consider load providers only needed.
2010/7/22 Regis <xu.re...@gmail.com>
> 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.
>
