Hi Vincente!
There is a bit code before that block which already checks the cache:
Boolean result = packageVetoCache.get(previousPackage);
if (result != null && result)
{
return result;
}
Imo it should also return if a False is cached.
can you please remove the && result and do a bench again?
txs and LieGrue,
strub
> Am 27.07.2020 um 10:00 schrieb Vicente Rossello <[email protected]>:
>
> Hi,
>
> I've seen a startup performance regression since OWB 2.0.17 and latest
> snapshot. Our boot times have increased from 10 to about 14 seconds (only OWB
> side). I can see that it always try to load the same package-info's in:
>
> while (true)
> {
> try // not always existing but enables to go further when getPackage is
> not available (graal)
> {
> pckge = classLoader.loadClass(previousPackage +
> (previousPackage.isEmpty() ? "" :".") +
> "package-info").getPackage();
> break;
> }
> catch (Exception e)
> {
> if (previousPackage.isEmpty())
> {
> pckge = null;
> break;
> }
> packageVetoCache.put(previousPackage, false);
> idx = previousPackage.lastIndexOf('.');
> if (idx > 0)
> {
> previousPackage = previousPackage.substring(0, idx);
> }
> else
> {
> previousPackage = "";
> }
> }
> }
>
> I think that, in this loop, it should take into account the packageVetoCache
> (whether it's true or false). Is it correct? Do you want a PR with this
> correction?
>
> Best regards,
> Vicente.
