if you have issues maybe that's bugs, if not the code should stay the same

*Romain Manni-Bucau*
*Twitter: @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau>*
*Blog: **http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/*<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/>
*LinkedIn: **http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau*
*Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau*



2013/4/30 Howard W. Smith, Jr. <[email protected]>

> Question...
>
> Based on the addition of OWB 1.2.0 to TomEE 1.6.0 snapshot and the
> following,
>
> Cleaning up the Bean creation
>
> In the past we had 2 ways to create beans. If an Extension used
> ProcessAnnotatedType to tweak the AnnotatedType of a class then we built
> the *Bean<T>* from the modified *AnnotatedType<T>*. For cases where the
> AnnotatedType did not get modified we took a completely different part and
> created the Bean from the Class reflection information. This part came from
> a time where there was no AnnotatedType in the spec yet.
>
> In OWB-1.2.0 we now do all the Bean<T> construction based on the
> AnnotatedType - regardless if it got provided by a CDI-Extension or
> remained unchanged. This made our codebase much easier to maintain! Arne
> also did a great job by introducing and cleaning up all the BeanBuilders
> and making the final Bean<T> immutable.
>
> (How) Should I modify this code, below, in my app to effectively use OWB
> 1.2.0?
>
>     /*
>      *
>
> http://docs.oracle.com/javaee/6/api/javax/enterprise/inject/spi/BeanManager.html
>      *
> http://struberg.wordpress.com/2012/03/20/why-is-openwebbeans-so-fast/
>      */
>     @SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
>     public <T> T getBean(Class<T> type) {
>         Bean<T> bean = (Bean<T>)
> beanManager.resolve(beanManager.getBeans(type));
>         CreationalContext<T>  creationalContext =
>                               beanManager.createCreationalContext(bean);
>
>         return (T) beanManager.getReference(bean, type, creationalContext);
>     }
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 8:44 AM, Howard W. Smith, Jr. <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
> > LOL, interesting that you all mentioned OWB 1.1.7, but did not mention
> OWB
> > 1.1.8. I know that TomEE has been using OWB 1.1.8 for some time now. I
> > guess OWB 1.2 is somewhat-more-faster than OWB 1.1.8. :) This is REALLY
> > peaking my interest! I love fast/performing app!
> >
> >
> > There is no bells and whistle and especially no reflection - just pure
> > plain Java bytecode which is blazingly fast!
> >
> > Btw, we do very similar stuff for non-intercepted methods of
> > intercepted/decorated classes. And we also improved the handling of
> > intercepted methods and are now more than twice as fast as OWB-1.1.7
> (which
> > was already very fast).
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 8:38 AM, Howard W. Smith, Jr. <
> > [email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Interesting, still reading...[1]
> >>
> >> As result of this unified handling we only stored the native Contextual
> >> Instances in the Contexts (Session, Request map, Conversation map, etc).
> >> The negative side effect of this approach was that we had to introduce a
> >> quite hacky mechanism to regain access to the CreationalContext.
> Needless
> >> to say that this was not only complex but also error prone.
> >>
> >> [1] http://blogs.apache.org/owb/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Howard W. Smith, Jr. <
> >> [email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> +1 cool!
> >>>
> >>> I'm about to download now/ASAP. I was about to ask you, what do the
> test
> >>> results reveal of recently-added owb 1.2 to tomee 1.6.0 snapshot, but
> >>> evidently, you knew where I was going.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 8:33 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> >>> [email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> cdi 1.0 tcks just passed this morning
> >>>>
> >>>> *Romain Manni-Bucau*
> >>>> *Twitter: @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau>*
> >>>> *Blog: **http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/*<
> >>>> http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/>
> >>>> *LinkedIn: **http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau*
> >>>> *Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau*
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 2013/4/30 Howard W. Smith, Jr. <[email protected]>
> >>>>
> >>>> > Are there many more tomee refactorings required, since owb 1.2 is in
> >>>> the
> >>>> > house? :)
> >>>> >
> >>>> > I just thought about reading, News from OpenWebBeans-1.2.0 [1], and
> >>>> so far
> >>>> > it looks interesting.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > The Apache OpenWebBeans team has been quite busy with big
> >>>> refactorings. Big
> >>>> > improvements have been made to the proxying mechanism, the Bean
> >>>> scanning
> >>>> > and the AnnotatedType handling. We managed to improve the overall
> >>>> > performance again and now deliver almost native Java like
> performance
> >>>> for
> >>>> > our NormalScoping proxies.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > to read more, click URL below
> >>>> >
> >>>> > [1] http://blogs.apache.org/owb/
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> > On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 9:35 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau
> >>>> > <[email protected]>wrote:
> >>>> >
> >>>> > > Hi,
> >>>> > >
> >>>> > > shouldn't change anything for you (that's the goal and still in
> >>>> progress)
> >>>> > >
> >>>> > > *Romain Manni-Bucau*
> >>>> > > *Twitter: @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau>*
> >>>> > > *Blog: **http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/*<
> >>>> > > http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/>
> >>>> > > *LinkedIn: **http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau*
> >>>> > > *Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau*
> >>>> > >
> >>>> > >
> >>>> > >
> >>>> > > 2013/4/29 Howard W. Smith, Jr. <[email protected]>
> >>>> > >
> >>>> > > > Okay, owb 1.2 is in the house. Can you please clarify what is
> >>>> changing
> >>>> > > with
> >>>> > > > bean manager due to OpenWebBeans (owb) version 1.2 and/or
> >>>> TOMEE-916[1]?
> >>>> > > Any
> >>>> > > > risks, pros, cons, performance enhancements, etc...?
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > > I am using bean manager instead of CODI bean manager. that is
> why
> >>>> I'm
> >>>> > > > asking. :)
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > > thanks,
> >>>> > > > Howard
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMEE-916
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > >
> >>>> >
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>

Reply via email to