It turns out that our bunch static method classes have some downsides. All things which need 'application specific' configuration or behaviour can only be saved cleanly by maintaining a Map<ClassLoader, Object config>. But getting the ClassLoader might be pretty expensive. In general: the WebBeansFinder is currently needed way too often. If we would not use static methods (almost exclusively) but use e.g. our BeanManagerImpl as a 'singleton server' then we could easily add those kind of configuration.
Just startup a profiler and look at how often BeanManagerImpl.getManger() gets called (this goes up to > 100000 for a complex JSF page). This is imo way too often and mainly caused because we don't pass the BeanManager around but always use the (compared to a simple method invocation) expensive singleton accessor instead. It's not really pressing, but I think we could easily add another 20% performance boost by changing this. LieGrue, strub ----- Original Message ---- > From: David Blevins <david.blev...@visi.com> > To: dev@openwebbeans.apache.org > Sent: Thu, August 5, 2010 9:31:50 PM > Subject: Re: Interceptor callback signature strictness > > > On Aug 5, 2010, at 11:18 AM, David Blevins wrote: > > > This is a debatable chance, but the goal is to somehow make it possible > > for >integrators to be less strict with this particular spec rule. > > > > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=982715 > > > > Basically, we opted not to strictly enforce this as the >invocationContext.proceed() method throws Exception so it forces all >interceptors to needlessly catch and convert that checked exception to a >runtime >exception to meet the spec requirements: > > > > @PostConstruct > > public void construct(InvocationContext context) { > > try { > > context.proceed(); > > } catch (Exception e) { > > throw new RuntimeException(e); > > } > > } > > > > The result is that if a callback exception is thrown by the bean, it will >end up being wrapped and re-thrown N number of times. > > > > Not terrible, but it is a bit of bad API. > > > > Anyway, if anyone sees a better way to do this I'm open to solutions. I >just went with simple and direct so it would be easily revertible and >changeable if we wanted to do something different. > > > On Aug 5, 2010, at 11:03 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: > > > hi david, how do you set this property ? > > I really hate public flags ;) > > > > Isn't ther an option to use our classic OpenWebBeansConfiguration? > > > > Hehe, missed your note -- was writing the above. > > Not a fan of static flags either. As I mention above was going for easy to >remove since I wasn't sure how it really should be done. > > You want to make the proposed change? (not sure I see exactly how you > imagine >it, will be good to watch as an example) > > > -David > >
