Re: is i18n messages suppose to be html escaped?
Ted,
The strings will only be escaped if the component you're using escapes the
text. If you're just embedding the expression in the page, it's not going to
be escaped, but you can use -- this allows you to control
whether or not you want the text escaped.
---
Kito D. Mann | twitter: kito99 | Author, JSF in Action
Virtua, Inc. | http://www.virtua.com | JSF/Java EE training and consulting
http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info | twitter:
jsfcentral
+1 203-404-4848 x3
* Listen to the latest headlines in the JSF and Java EE newscast:
http://blogs.jsfcentral.com/roller/editorsdesk/category/JSF+and+Java+EE+Newscast
* Keep up with the aftermath of the Oracle/Sun merger:
http://www.mergerspeak.com
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:36 PM, Ted wrote:
> I'm using string tables and to i18n some messages using jsf and I've got
> some unexpected behavior
>
> if I have a string table
>
> string1=asdf
> string2=my "cow" is brown
>
> if I then go on to a jsf page and do
>
> #{msg.string1}
> #{msg.string2}
>
> the result I get is
>
> asdf
> my "cow" is brown
>
> My expectation is that the quote should have been converted to "
> shouldn't it? (either that or at least the <'s should not have been
> escaped...)
>
> anyone know anything about this?
> --
> Ted.
>
is i18n messages suppose to be html escaped?
I'm using string tables and to i18n some messages using jsf and I've got
some unexpected behavior
if I have a string table
string1=asdf
string2=my "cow" is brown
if I then go on to a jsf page and do
#{msg.string1}
#{msg.string2}
the result I get is
asdf
my "cow" is brown
My expectation is that the quote should have been converted to "
shouldn't it? (either that or at least the <'s should not have been
escaped...)
anyone know anything about this?
--
Ted.
Re: My Faces Tunning
We tend to run higher sizes for our users. Currently running at 4M but as high as 25M. But it is good to see some real numbers and possible targets/guidelines that we should be shooting for. Thanks -David Boyd (Sent via BlackBerry) - Original Message - From: Mark Struberg [mailto:strub...@yahoo.de] Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 04:58 PM To: MyFaces Discussion Subject: Re: My Faces Tunning +1 mem is barely a problem these days. Actually we are serving 60.000++ users per day without any mem problems (w 100 views/session ServerSide-StateSaving). We need some low GB mem on our 48GB RAM server... Even if you have 1MB of session mem per user then you can serve tons of users. LieGrue, strub > >From: Tobias Eisentrager >To: MyFaces Discussion >Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 10:46 PM >Subject: Re: My Faces Tunning > >David, > >Usually memory is the problem - but sometimes there are also CPU problems - >you can run WebSphere for example on the Mainframe. Compared to a Linux Box >CPU time can be expensive there. > >Are you running on a 64 bit Architecture? Memory is not that expensive these >days ;-) > >What is you total memory usage? > >Toby > >On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:42 PM, Boyd, David (Corporate) < >david.b...@adesa.com> wrote: > >> Scott, >> >> With your comment below but do you feel is a more realistic targeted >> size for session size with JSF? >> >> All, >> >> Based on some of the comments, is this not an issue for others that make >> use of this Technology or did we basically implement it incorrectly - >> from the way the .jsp are created to how we are managing the backing >> beans? >> >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Scott O'Bryan [mailto:darkar...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 4:58 PM >> To: users@myfaces.apache.org >> Subject: Re: My Faces Tunning >> >> Wow.. Looks like you've done a lot, but I personally think 5K is >> unrealistic. Your right. Essentially JSF stores your component tree in >> >> memory. >> >> You MAY be able to enable client-side state saving which should free you >> >> up some memory at the expense of storing the entire view tree on the >> client. Additionally, a framework like orchestra or something home >> grown may allow you to get rid of managed beans quicker. >> >> One other thing. I don't know how Websphere works, but I know in the >> case of WLS, it only serializes object when they are added to the >> session. While this means they may need to be added again if they are >> updated, it's not subject to this limitation your describing. I'm >> wondering if WebSphere has some settings on the replication which might >> get you some better results. >> >> Scott >> >> On 10/17/2011 02:16 PM, Boyd, David (Corporate) wrote: >> > All, >> > >> > >> > >> > I am doing some investigation into how to shrink the amount of session >> > memory our JSF application is consuming on a per user basis. >> > >> > >> > >> > We are using MyFaces 1.1.7 and Tomahawk 1.1.5 running on IBM Websphere >> > 7.0 patch 19. (Not able to upgrade either of these items at this time) >> > >> > >> > >> > IBM's guideline is that the session size should be less then 5k - >> > average around 2.5k in order not to impact performance of the server >> and >> > session replication. We are currently using Memory to Memory but >> > looking at moving to database as suggested by IBM. >> > >> > >> > >> > Our site was running at about 35M per user. We changed the number of >> > view states from 100 to 10 and that dropped it down to around 4M. >> > >> > >> > >> > We have several backing beans which are currently session scope and >> are >> > looking at changing them to request scope. >> > >> > >> > >> > I also found the following: >> > >> http://www.econsulting.nl/images/pdf/Tuning%20JSF%20Applications-%20J-Sp >> > ring%202008.pdf which seems to have a lot of information concerning >> how >> > JSF handles certain content on the pages. This is still under >> > investigation to make sure what is stated make sense. >> > >> > >> > >> > I have also read somewhere that regardless if the managed backing bean >> > is session or request scope is that the view state will still have the >> > bean and its content. So the view state size will not change. >> Looking >> > for clarification on this one. >> > >> > >> > >> > The questions is are others facing the same issue in which JSF >> > applications tend to consume a lot of memory for a given users >> session? >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > What are some of the best practices to reduce this size if any or is >> > this just the way when using JSF? >> > >> > >> > >> > Issues with session replication on IBM WebSphere when running a JSF >> > application? >> > >> > >> > >> > What we see as a result of this is that in the event a user hops to >> > another server, the session data is not present due to how large the >> > data is and how long it takes to replicate. User experience issues. >> > >> > >> > >> >
Re: My Faces Tunning
We are running under Red Hat with WebSphere 7 64-Bit. Currently heap is set to 8 G. The issue seems to be around the ability of the server to replicate the data across all the servers. We get complaints from the users of lost information during a server hop Thanks -David Boyd (Sent via BlackBerry) - Original Message - From: Tobias Eisentrager [mailto:teisentrae...@googlemail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 04:46 PM To: MyFaces Discussion Subject: Re: My Faces Tunning David, Usually memory is the problem - but sometimes there are also CPU problems - you can run WebSphere for example on the Mainframe. Compared to a Linux Box CPU time can be expensive there. Are you running on a 64 bit Architecture? Memory is not that expensive these days ;-) What is you total memory usage? Toby On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:42 PM, Boyd, David (Corporate) < david.b...@adesa.com> wrote: > Scott, > > With your comment below but do you feel is a more realistic targeted > size for session size with JSF? > > All, > > Based on some of the comments, is this not an issue for others that make > use of this Technology or did we basically implement it incorrectly - > from the way the .jsp are created to how we are managing the backing > beans? > > > > -Original Message- > From: Scott O'Bryan [mailto:darkar...@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 4:58 PM > To: users@myfaces.apache.org > Subject: Re: My Faces Tunning > > Wow.. Looks like you've done a lot, but I personally think 5K is > unrealistic. Your right. Essentially JSF stores your component tree in > > memory. > > You MAY be able to enable client-side state saving which should free you > > up some memory at the expense of storing the entire view tree on the > client. Additionally, a framework like orchestra or something home > grown may allow you to get rid of managed beans quicker. > > One other thing. I don't know how Websphere works, but I know in the > case of WLS, it only serializes object when they are added to the > session. While this means they may need to be added again if they are > updated, it's not subject to this limitation your describing. I'm > wondering if WebSphere has some settings on the replication which might > get you some better results. > > Scott > > On 10/17/2011 02:16 PM, Boyd, David (Corporate) wrote: > > All, > > > > > > > > I am doing some investigation into how to shrink the amount of session > > memory our JSF application is consuming on a per user basis. > > > > > > > > We are using MyFaces 1.1.7 and Tomahawk 1.1.5 running on IBM Websphere > > 7.0 patch 19. (Not able to upgrade either of these items at this time) > > > > > > > > IBM's guideline is that the session size should be less then 5k - > > average around 2.5k in order not to impact performance of the server > and > > session replication. We are currently using Memory to Memory but > > looking at moving to database as suggested by IBM. > > > > > > > > Our site was running at about 35M per user. We changed the number of > > view states from 100 to 10 and that dropped it down to around 4M. > > > > > > > > We have several backing beans which are currently session scope and > are > > looking at changing them to request scope. > > > > > > > > I also found the following: > > > http://www.econsulting.nl/images/pdf/Tuning%20JSF%20Applications-%20J-Sp > > ring%202008.pdf which seems to have a lot of information concerning > how > > JSF handles certain content on the pages. This is still under > > investigation to make sure what is stated make sense. > > > > > > > > I have also read somewhere that regardless if the managed backing bean > > is session or request scope is that the view state will still have the > > bean and its content. So the view state size will not change. > Looking > > for clarification on this one. > > > > > > > > The questions is are others facing the same issue in which JSF > > applications tend to consume a lot of memory for a given users > session? > > > > > > > > > > What are some of the best practices to reduce this size if any or is > > this just the way when using JSF? > > > > > > > > Issues with session replication on IBM WebSphere when running a JSF > > application? > > > > > > > > What we see as a result of this is that in the event a user hops to > > another server, the session data is not present due to how large the > > data is and how long it takes to replicate. User experience issues. > > > > > > > > We had seen an issue in which it appeared that changes to the object > in > > the session was not being updated correctly and have done some session > > management tuning in which we customize the settings so that all > session > > attributes are written out. Looking at the .jar file it does appear > > that myFaces is making the call correctly when the contents of the > > object in the session changes. So WebSphere session listener should > be > > picking up that change. > > > > > >
Re: My Faces Tunning
+1 mem is barely a problem these days. Actually we are serving 60.000++ users per day without any mem problems (w 100 views/session ServerSide-StateSaving). We need some low GB mem on our 48GB RAM server... Even if you have 1MB of session mem per user then you can serve tons of users. LieGrue, strub > >From: Tobias Eisentrager >To: MyFaces Discussion >Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 10:46 PM >Subject: Re: My Faces Tunning > >David, > >Usually memory is the problem - but sometimes there are also CPU problems - >you can run WebSphere for example on the Mainframe. Compared to a Linux Box >CPU time can be expensive there. > >Are you running on a 64 bit Architecture? Memory is not that expensive these >days ;-) > >What is you total memory usage? > >Toby > >On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:42 PM, Boyd, David (Corporate) < >david.b...@adesa.com> wrote: > >> Scott, >> >> With your comment below but do you feel is a more realistic targeted >> size for session size with JSF? >> >> All, >> >> Based on some of the comments, is this not an issue for others that make >> use of this Technology or did we basically implement it incorrectly - >> from the way the .jsp are created to how we are managing the backing >> beans? >> >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Scott O'Bryan [mailto:darkar...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 4:58 PM >> To: users@myfaces.apache.org >> Subject: Re: My Faces Tunning >> >> Wow.. Looks like you've done a lot, but I personally think 5K is >> unrealistic. Your right. Essentially JSF stores your component tree in >> >> memory. >> >> You MAY be able to enable client-side state saving which should free you >> >> up some memory at the expense of storing the entire view tree on the >> client. Additionally, a framework like orchestra or something home >> grown may allow you to get rid of managed beans quicker. >> >> One other thing. I don't know how Websphere works, but I know in the >> case of WLS, it only serializes object when they are added to the >> session. While this means they may need to be added again if they are >> updated, it's not subject to this limitation your describing. I'm >> wondering if WebSphere has some settings on the replication which might >> get you some better results. >> >> Scott >> >> On 10/17/2011 02:16 PM, Boyd, David (Corporate) wrote: >> > All, >> > >> > >> > >> > I am doing some investigation into how to shrink the amount of session >> > memory our JSF application is consuming on a per user basis. >> > >> > >> > >> > We are using MyFaces 1.1.7 and Tomahawk 1.1.5 running on IBM Websphere >> > 7.0 patch 19. (Not able to upgrade either of these items at this time) >> > >> > >> > >> > IBM's guideline is that the session size should be less then 5k - >> > average around 2.5k in order not to impact performance of the server >> and >> > session replication. We are currently using Memory to Memory but >> > looking at moving to database as suggested by IBM. >> > >> > >> > >> > Our site was running at about 35M per user. We changed the number of >> > view states from 100 to 10 and that dropped it down to around 4M. >> > >> > >> > >> > We have several backing beans which are currently session scope and >> are >> > looking at changing them to request scope. >> > >> > >> > >> > I also found the following: >> > >> http://www.econsulting.nl/images/pdf/Tuning%20JSF%20Applications-%20J-Sp >> > ring%202008.pdf which seems to have a lot of information concerning >> how >> > JSF handles certain content on the pages. This is still under >> > investigation to make sure what is stated make sense. >> > >> > >> > >> > I have also read somewhere that regardless if the managed backing bean >> > is session or request scope is that the view state will still have the >> > bean and its content. So the view state size will not change. >> Looking >> > for clarification on this one. >> > >> > >> > >> > The questions is are others facing the same issue in which JSF >> > applications tend to consume a lot of memory for a given users >> session? >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > What are some of the best practices to reduce this size if any or is >> > this just the way when using JSF? >> > >> > >> > >> > Issues with session replication on IBM WebSphere when running a JSF >> > application? >> > >> > >> > >> > What we see as a result of this is that in the event a user hops to >> > another server, the session data is not present due to how large the >> > data is and how long it takes to replicate. User experience issues. >> > >> > >> > >> > We had seen an issue in which it appeared that changes to the object >> in >> > the session was not being updated correctly and have done some session >> > management tuning in which we customize the settings so that all >> session >> > attributes are written out. Looking at the .jar file it does appear >> > that myFaces is making the call correctly when the contents of the >> > object in the session changes.
Re: My Faces Tunning
David, Usually memory is the problem - but sometimes there are also CPU problems - you can run WebSphere for example on the Mainframe. Compared to a Linux Box CPU time can be expensive there. Are you running on a 64 bit Architecture? Memory is not that expensive these days ;-) What is you total memory usage? Toby On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:42 PM, Boyd, David (Corporate) < david.b...@adesa.com> wrote: > Scott, > > With your comment below but do you feel is a more realistic targeted > size for session size with JSF? > > All, > > Based on some of the comments, is this not an issue for others that make > use of this Technology or did we basically implement it incorrectly - > from the way the .jsp are created to how we are managing the backing > beans? > > > > -Original Message- > From: Scott O'Bryan [mailto:darkar...@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 4:58 PM > To: users@myfaces.apache.org > Subject: Re: My Faces Tunning > > Wow.. Looks like you've done a lot, but I personally think 5K is > unrealistic. Your right. Essentially JSF stores your component tree in > > memory. > > You MAY be able to enable client-side state saving which should free you > > up some memory at the expense of storing the entire view tree on the > client. Additionally, a framework like orchestra or something home > grown may allow you to get rid of managed beans quicker. > > One other thing. I don't know how Websphere works, but I know in the > case of WLS, it only serializes object when they are added to the > session. While this means they may need to be added again if they are > updated, it's not subject to this limitation your describing. I'm > wondering if WebSphere has some settings on the replication which might > get you some better results. > > Scott > > On 10/17/2011 02:16 PM, Boyd, David (Corporate) wrote: > > All, > > > > > > > > I am doing some investigation into how to shrink the amount of session > > memory our JSF application is consuming on a per user basis. > > > > > > > > We are using MyFaces 1.1.7 and Tomahawk 1.1.5 running on IBM Websphere > > 7.0 patch 19. (Not able to upgrade either of these items at this time) > > > > > > > > IBM's guideline is that the session size should be less then 5k - > > average around 2.5k in order not to impact performance of the server > and > > session replication. We are currently using Memory to Memory but > > looking at moving to database as suggested by IBM. > > > > > > > > Our site was running at about 35M per user. We changed the number of > > view states from 100 to 10 and that dropped it down to around 4M. > > > > > > > > We have several backing beans which are currently session scope and > are > > looking at changing them to request scope. > > > > > > > > I also found the following: > > > http://www.econsulting.nl/images/pdf/Tuning%20JSF%20Applications-%20J-Sp > > ring%202008.pdf which seems to have a lot of information concerning > how > > JSF handles certain content on the pages. This is still under > > investigation to make sure what is stated make sense. > > > > > > > > I have also read somewhere that regardless if the managed backing bean > > is session or request scope is that the view state will still have the > > bean and its content. So the view state size will not change. > Looking > > for clarification on this one. > > > > > > > > The questions is are others facing the same issue in which JSF > > applications tend to consume a lot of memory for a given users > session? > > > > > > > > > > What are some of the best practices to reduce this size if any or is > > this just the way when using JSF? > > > > > > > > Issues with session replication on IBM WebSphere when running a JSF > > application? > > > > > > > > What we see as a result of this is that in the event a user hops to > > another server, the session data is not present due to how large the > > data is and how long it takes to replicate. User experience issues. > > > > > > > > We had seen an issue in which it appeared that changes to the object > in > > the session was not being updated correctly and have done some session > > management tuning in which we customize the settings so that all > session > > attributes are written out. Looking at the .jar file it does appear > > that myFaces is making the call correctly when the contents of the > > object in the session changes. So WebSphere session listener should > be > > picking up that change. > > > > > >
RE: My Faces Tunning
Scott, With your comment below but do you feel is a more realistic targeted size for session size with JSF? All, Based on some of the comments, is this not an issue for others that make use of this Technology or did we basically implement it incorrectly - from the way the .jsp are created to how we are managing the backing beans? -Original Message- From: Scott O'Bryan [mailto:darkar...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 4:58 PM To: users@myfaces.apache.org Subject: Re: My Faces Tunning Wow.. Looks like you've done a lot, but I personally think 5K is unrealistic. Your right. Essentially JSF stores your component tree in memory. You MAY be able to enable client-side state saving which should free you up some memory at the expense of storing the entire view tree on the client. Additionally, a framework like orchestra or something home grown may allow you to get rid of managed beans quicker. One other thing. I don't know how Websphere works, but I know in the case of WLS, it only serializes object when they are added to the session. While this means they may need to be added again if they are updated, it's not subject to this limitation your describing. I'm wondering if WebSphere has some settings on the replication which might get you some better results. Scott On 10/17/2011 02:16 PM, Boyd, David (Corporate) wrote: > All, > > > > I am doing some investigation into how to shrink the amount of session > memory our JSF application is consuming on a per user basis. > > > > We are using MyFaces 1.1.7 and Tomahawk 1.1.5 running on IBM Websphere > 7.0 patch 19. (Not able to upgrade either of these items at this time) > > > > IBM's guideline is that the session size should be less then 5k - > average around 2.5k in order not to impact performance of the server and > session replication. We are currently using Memory to Memory but > looking at moving to database as suggested by IBM. > > > > Our site was running at about 35M per user. We changed the number of > view states from 100 to 10 and that dropped it down to around 4M. > > > > We have several backing beans which are currently session scope and are > looking at changing them to request scope. > > > > I also found the following: > http://www.econsulting.nl/images/pdf/Tuning%20JSF%20Applications-%20J-Sp > ring%202008.pdf which seems to have a lot of information concerning how > JSF handles certain content on the pages. This is still under > investigation to make sure what is stated make sense. > > > > I have also read somewhere that regardless if the managed backing bean > is session or request scope is that the view state will still have the > bean and its content. So the view state size will not change. Looking > for clarification on this one. > > > > The questions is are others facing the same issue in which JSF > applications tend to consume a lot of memory for a given users session? > > > > > What are some of the best practices to reduce this size if any or is > this just the way when using JSF? > > > > Issues with session replication on IBM WebSphere when running a JSF > application? > > > > What we see as a result of this is that in the event a user hops to > another server, the session data is not present due to how large the > data is and how long it takes to replicate. User experience issues. > > > > We had seen an issue in which it appeared that changes to the object in > the session was not being updated correctly and have done some session > management tuning in which we customize the settings so that all session > attributes are written out. Looking at the .jar file it does appear > that myFaces is making the call correctly when the contents of the > object in the session changes. So WebSphere session listener should be > picking up that change. > >
Re: My Faces Tunning
Still (I know it is not an option) but if you need to reduce session space JSF 2 is the way to go, the delta state saving can free a load of ram. Werner Am 10/17/11 10:58 PM, schrieb Scott O'Bryan: Wow.. Looks like you've done a lot, but I personally think 5K is unrealistic. Your right. Essentially JSF stores your component tree in memory. You MAY be able to enable client-side state saving which should free you up some memory at the expense of storing the entire view tree on the client. Additionally, a framework like orchestra or something home grown may allow you to get rid of managed beans quicker. One other thing. I don't know how Websphere works, but I know in the case of WLS, it only serializes object when they are added to the session. While this means they may need to be added again if they are updated, it's not subject to this limitation your describing. I'm wondering if WebSphere has some settings on the replication which might get you some better results. Scott On 10/17/2011 02:16 PM, Boyd, David (Corporate) wrote: All, I am doing some investigation into how to shrink the amount of session memory our JSF application is consuming on a per user basis. We are using MyFaces 1.1.7 and Tomahawk 1.1.5 running on IBM Websphere 7.0 patch 19. (Not able to upgrade either of these items at this time) IBM's guideline is that the session size should be less then 5k - average around 2.5k in order not to impact performance of the server and session replication. We are currently using Memory to Memory but looking at moving to database as suggested by IBM. Our site was running at about 35M per user. We changed the number of view states from 100 to 10 and that dropped it down to around 4M. We have several backing beans which are currently session scope and are looking at changing them to request scope. I also found the following: http://www.econsulting.nl/images/pdf/Tuning%20JSF%20Applications-%20J-Sp ring%202008.pdf which seems to have a lot of information concerning how JSF handles certain content on the pages. This is still under investigation to make sure what is stated make sense. I have also read somewhere that regardless if the managed backing bean is session or request scope is that the view state will still have the bean and its content. So the view state size will not change. Looking for clarification on this one. The questions is are others facing the same issue in which JSF applications tend to consume a lot of memory for a given users session? What are some of the best practices to reduce this size if any or is this just the way when using JSF? Issues with session replication on IBM WebSphere when running a JSF application? What we see as a result of this is that in the event a user hops to another server, the session data is not present due to how large the data is and how long it takes to replicate. User experience issues. We had seen an issue in which it appeared that changes to the object in the session was not being updated correctly and have done some session management tuning in which we customize the settings so that all session attributes are written out. Looking at the .jar file it does appear that myFaces is making the call correctly when the contents of the object in the session changes. So WebSphere session listener should be picking up that change.
Re: NPE with CODI, OWB and JUNIT
Hi Gerhard, thanks, it works! 2011/10/17 Gerhard Petracek > hi thomas, > > i see. in this case you need the cditest-owb module of owb (it's in the > same > example). > > regards, > gerhard > > http://www.irian.at > > Your JSF powerhouse - > JSF Consulting, Development and > Courses in English and German > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces > > > 2011/10/17 Thomas Andraschko > > > Also i don't want to include jsf/web dependencies to this module, i only > > need a CDI aware test. This is just for my business logic layer. > > > > 2011/10/17 Thomas Andraschko > > > > > Hi Gerhard, > > > > > > do i really need this when i just want to test my business logic > without > > > web and jsf? > > > > > > Best regards, > > > Thomas > > > > > > > > > 2011/10/17 Gerhard Petracek > > > > > >> hi thomas, > > >> > > >> you also need other dependencies like myfaces-test and the > > >> jsf-support-module. > > >> you can have a look e.g. at [1]. > > >> > > >> regards, > > >> gerhard > > >> > > >> [1] > > >> > > >> > > > http://code.google.com/a/apache-extras.org/p/myfaces-codi-examples/source/browse/community/pom.xml > > >> > > >> http://www.irian.at > > >> > > >> Your JSF powerhouse - > > >> JSF Consulting, Development and > > >> Courses in English and German > > >> > > >> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces > > >> > > >> > > >> 2011/10/17 Thomas Andraschko > > >> > > >> > Hi, > > >> > > > >> > my junit tests extends from AbstractCdiAwareTest and i'm trying to > > >> inject > > >> > one of my DAO's. > > >> > The NPE occurs in > TestContainerFactory.isServletContextAwareContainer > > >> > because testContainer is null. > > >> > > > >> > Here is my list with depenedencies: > > >> > > > >> >junit > > >> >cdi-api > > >> >openwebbeans-impl > > >> >openwebbeans-spi > > >> >openwebbeans-resource > > >> >myfaces-extcdi-core-api > > >> >myfaces-extcdi-core-impl > > >> > > > >> myfaces-extcdi-base-test-infrastructure > > >> > > > myfaces-extcdi-junit-support-module > > >> > > myfaces-extcdi-owb-support-module > > >> > > > >> > OWB 1.1.1, CODI 1.0.1, JUnit 4.6 > > >> > > > >> > How can i fix this? > > >> > > > >> > Thanks and best regards > > >> > Thomas > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
Re: CODI/ExtVal Add-Ons
hi thomas, since we might move it to codi after v1.0.2, there won't be a deployment (for now). regards, gerhard http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces 2011/10/17 Thomas Andraschko > Hi Gerhard, > > thanks for this links but i can't find the boost add-on in this > repositories. > It this add-on somewhere available or should i build it from source? > > Thanks > Thomas > > 2011/10/11 Gerhard Petracek > > > hi thomas, > > > > see [1] and [2]. > > some add-ons are deployed to sub-directories of [3] btw. [4]. > > (examples like [5] show how to configure such repositories.) > > > > regards, > > gerhard > > > > [1] > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/EXTCDI/External#External-Addons > > [2] > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/EXTVAL/External#External-Addons > > [3] http://os890-m2-repository.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/ > > [4] http://os890-m2-repository.googlecode.com/svn/tags/ > > [5] > > > > > http://code.google.com/a/apache-extras.org/p/myfaces-codi-addons/source/browse/controlled_bootstrapping_owb/example > > > > http://www.irian.at > > > > Your JSF powerhouse - > > JSF Consulting, Development and > > Courses in English and German > > > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces > > > > > > > > 2011/10/11 Thomas Andraschko > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > is there a list with all CODI and ExtVal Add-Ons available? > > > Especially i'm interested in the CODI Boos Add-On. Is there also an > Maven > > > Repository for this stuff? > > > > > > Thanks and best regards > > > Thomas > > > > > >
Re: My Faces Tunning
Hello David, How large are your pages? Do you have several tabs each with nested tabs and lots of fields? Which component suite(s) are you using? --- Kito D. Mann | twitter: kito99 | Author, JSF in Action Virtua, Inc. | http://www.virtua.com | JSF/Java EE training and consulting http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info | twitter: jsfcentral +1 203-404-4848 x3 * Listen to the latest headlines in the JSF and Java EE newscast: http://blogs.jsfcentral.com/roller/editorsdesk/category/JSF+and+Java+EE+Newscast * Keep up with the aftermath of the Oracle/Sun merger: http://www.mergerspeak.com On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Boyd, David (Corporate) < david.b...@adesa.com> wrote: > All, > > > > I am doing some investigation into how to shrink the amount of session > memory our JSF application is consuming on a per user basis. > > > > We are using MyFaces 1.1.7 and Tomahawk 1.1.5 running on IBM Websphere > 7.0 patch 19. (Not able to upgrade either of these items at this time) > > > > IBM's guideline is that the session size should be less then 5k - > average around 2.5k in order not to impact performance of the server and > session replication. We are currently using Memory to Memory but > looking at moving to database as suggested by IBM. > > > > Our site was running at about 35M per user. We changed the number of > view states from 100 to 10 and that dropped it down to around 4M. > > > > We have several backing beans which are currently session scope and are > looking at changing them to request scope. > > > > I also found the following: > http://www.econsulting.nl/images/pdf/Tuning%20JSF%20Applications-%20J-Sp > ring%202008.pdf which seems to have a lot of information concerning how > JSF handles certain content on the pages. This is still under > investigation to make sure what is stated make sense. > > > > I have also read somewhere that regardless if the managed backing bean > is session or request scope is that the view state will still have the > bean and its content. So the view state size will not change. Looking > for clarification on this one. > > > > The questions is are others facing the same issue in which JSF > applications tend to consume a lot of memory for a given users session? > > > > > What are some of the best practices to reduce this size if any or is > this just the way when using JSF? > > > > Issues with session replication on IBM WebSphere when running a JSF > application? > > > > What we see as a result of this is that in the event a user hops to > another server, the session data is not present due to how large the > data is and how long it takes to replicate. User experience issues. > > > > We had seen an issue in which it appeared that changes to the object in > the session was not being updated correctly and have done some session > management tuning in which we customize the settings so that all session > attributes are written out. Looking at the .jar file it does appear > that myFaces is making the call correctly when the contents of the > object in the session changes. So WebSphere session listener should be > picking up that change. > >
RE: My Faces Tunning
If we go with client side state saving what kind of performance hit can we expect? Going this route does this make assumptions on the type of machine a user has? The browser that they are using? >From the myFaces wiki, I see that if we go with client side we have the issue >of serialization. At this point can someone point me to a good reference in order for me to understand the life cycle of JSF request/response to see how all this plays out? -Original Message- From: Mark Struberg [mailto:strub...@yahoo.de] Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 4:01 AM To: MyFaces Discussion Subject: Re: My Faces Tunning > - Set the NUMBER_OF_VIEWS_IN SESSION to 1 if your app does not support > the browser back button! And once a user opens another browser tab all will crash :( The missing windowId support is really a pitty in the JSF spec, and we currently think hard about how to solve this (at least in MyFaces). Until then all the stored views are shared accross all open browser tabs. The best thing you can do to reduse Session space is to use ClientSideStateSaving LieGrue, strub - Original Message - > From: Michael Heinen > To: MyFaces Discussion > Cc: > Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 9:36 AM > Subject: Re: My Faces Tunning > > A few thoughts: > - Set the NUMBER_OF_VIEWS_IN SESSION to 1 if your app does not support > the browser back button! > - try to reduce the number of components (e.g. conditionally controls > can be excluded at compile time via c:if or via dynamic includes instead > of visibleOnUserRole or rendered checks). > - facelets instead of jsps > - plain html tags where possible > - short component ids > > Michael > > > > Am 17.10.2011 22:16, schrieb Boyd, David (Corporate): >> All, >> >> >> >> I am doing some investigation into how to shrink the amount of session >> memory our JSF application is consuming on a per user basis. >> >> >> >> We are using MyFaces 1.1.7 and Tomahawk 1.1.5 running on IBM Websphere >> 7.0 patch 19. (Not able to upgrade either of these items at this time) >> >> >> >> IBM's guideline is that the session size should be less then 5k - >> average around 2.5k in order not to impact performance of the server and >> session replication. We are currently using Memory to Memory but >> looking at moving to database as suggested by IBM. >> >> >> >> Our site was running at about 35M per user. We changed the number of >> view states from 100 to 10 and that dropped it down to around 4M. >> >> >> >> We have several backing beans which are currently session scope and are >> looking at changing them to request scope. >> >> >> >> I also found the following: >> http://www.econsulting.nl/images/pdf/Tuning%20JSF%20Applications-%20J-Sp >> ring%202008.pdf which seems to have a lot of information concerning how >> JSF handles certain content on the pages. This is still under >> investigation to make sure what is stated make sense. >> >> >> >> I have also read somewhere that regardless if the managed backing bean >> is session or request scope is that the view state will still have the >> bean and its content. So the view state size will not change. Looking >> for clarification on this one. >> >> >> >> The questions is are others facing the same issue in which JSF >> applications tend to consume a lot of memory for a given users session? >> >> >> >> >> What are some of the best practices to reduce this size if any or is >> this just the way when using JSF? >> >> >> >> Issues with session replication on IBM WebSphere when running a JSF >> application? >> >> >> >> What we see as a result of this is that in the event a user hops to >> another server, the session data is not present due to how large the >> data is and how long it takes to replicate. User experience issues. >> >> >> >> We had seen an issue in which it appeared that changes to the object in >> the session was not being updated correctly and have done some session >> management tuning in which we customize the settings so that all session >> attributes are written out. Looking at the .jar file it does appear >> that myFaces is making the call correctly when the contents of the >> object in the session changes. So WebSphere session listener should be >> picking up that change. >> >> >
Re: My Faces Tunning
> - Set the NUMBER_OF_VIEWS_IN SESSION to 1 if your app does not support > the browser back button! And once a user opens another browser tab all will crash :( The missing windowId support is really a pitty in the JSF spec, and we currently think hard about how to solve this (at least in MyFaces). Until then all the stored views are shared accross all open browser tabs. The best thing you can do to reduse Session space is to use ClientSideStateSaving LieGrue, strub - Original Message - > From: Michael Heinen > To: MyFaces Discussion > Cc: > Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 9:36 AM > Subject: Re: My Faces Tunning > > A few thoughts: > - Set the NUMBER_OF_VIEWS_IN SESSION to 1 if your app does not support > the browser back button! > - try to reduce the number of components (e.g. conditionally controls > can be excluded at compile time via c:if or via dynamic includes instead > of visibleOnUserRole or rendered checks). > - facelets instead of jsps > - plain html tags where possible > - short component ids > > Michael > > > > Am 17.10.2011 22:16, schrieb Boyd, David (Corporate): >> All, >> >> >> >> I am doing some investigation into how to shrink the amount of session >> memory our JSF application is consuming on a per user basis. >> >> >> >> We are using MyFaces 1.1.7 and Tomahawk 1.1.5 running on IBM Websphere >> 7.0 patch 19. (Not able to upgrade either of these items at this time) >> >> >> >> IBM's guideline is that the session size should be less then 5k - >> average around 2.5k in order not to impact performance of the server and >> session replication. We are currently using Memory to Memory but >> looking at moving to database as suggested by IBM. >> >> >> >> Our site was running at about 35M per user. We changed the number of >> view states from 100 to 10 and that dropped it down to around 4M. >> >> >> >> We have several backing beans which are currently session scope and are >> looking at changing them to request scope. >> >> >> >> I also found the following: >> http://www.econsulting.nl/images/pdf/Tuning%20JSF%20Applications-%20J-Sp >> ring%202008.pdf which seems to have a lot of information concerning how >> JSF handles certain content on the pages. This is still under >> investigation to make sure what is stated make sense. >> >> >> >> I have also read somewhere that regardless if the managed backing bean >> is session or request scope is that the view state will still have the >> bean and its content. So the view state size will not change. Looking >> for clarification on this one. >> >> >> >> The questions is are others facing the same issue in which JSF >> applications tend to consume a lot of memory for a given users session? >> >> >> >> >> What are some of the best practices to reduce this size if any or is >> this just the way when using JSF? >> >> >> >> Issues with session replication on IBM WebSphere when running a JSF >> application? >> >> >> >> What we see as a result of this is that in the event a user hops to >> another server, the session data is not present due to how large the >> data is and how long it takes to replicate. User experience issues. >> >> >> >> We had seen an issue in which it appeared that changes to the object in >> the session was not being updated correctly and have done some session >> management tuning in which we customize the settings so that all session >> attributes are written out. Looking at the .jar file it does appear >> that myFaces is making the call correctly when the contents of the >> object in the session changes. So WebSphere session listener should be >> picking up that change. >> >> >
Re: My Faces Tunning
A few thoughts: - Set the NUMBER_OF_VIEWS_IN SESSION to 1 if your app does not support the browser back button! - try to reduce the number of components (e.g. conditionally controls can be excluded at compile time via c:if or via dynamic includes instead of visibleOnUserRole or rendered checks). - facelets instead of jsps - plain html tags where possible - short component ids Michael Am 17.10.2011 22:16, schrieb Boyd, David (Corporate): All, I am doing some investigation into how to shrink the amount of session memory our JSF application is consuming on a per user basis. We are using MyFaces 1.1.7 and Tomahawk 1.1.5 running on IBM Websphere 7.0 patch 19. (Not able to upgrade either of these items at this time) IBM's guideline is that the session size should be less then 5k - average around 2.5k in order not to impact performance of the server and session replication. We are currently using Memory to Memory but looking at moving to database as suggested by IBM. Our site was running at about 35M per user. We changed the number of view states from 100 to 10 and that dropped it down to around 4M. We have several backing beans which are currently session scope and are looking at changing them to request scope. I also found the following: http://www.econsulting.nl/images/pdf/Tuning%20JSF%20Applications-%20J-Sp ring%202008.pdf which seems to have a lot of information concerning how JSF handles certain content on the pages. This is still under investigation to make sure what is stated make sense. I have also read somewhere that regardless if the managed backing bean is session or request scope is that the view state will still have the bean and its content. So the view state size will not change. Looking for clarification on this one. The questions is are others facing the same issue in which JSF applications tend to consume a lot of memory for a given users session? What are some of the best practices to reduce this size if any or is this just the way when using JSF? Issues with session replication on IBM WebSphere when running a JSF application? What we see as a result of this is that in the event a user hops to another server, the session data is not present due to how large the data is and how long it takes to replicate. User experience issues. We had seen an issue in which it appeared that changes to the object in the session was not being updated correctly and have done some session management tuning in which we customize the settings so that all session attributes are written out. Looking at the .jar file it does appear that myFaces is making the call correctly when the contents of the object in the session changes. So WebSphere session listener should be picking up that change.
