FazBrowse GitHub Viewer | Trending |
URL:
| Home
Tools: [Download Repo ZIP]   [Original HTTPS Page]

Cache JsonProvider.provider() result as per javadoc recommendation by gbloisi · Pull Request #78 · javaee/jsonp · GitHub

This repository was archived by the owner on Nov 7, 2024. It is now read-only.
  1. javaee
  2. jsonp

Repository navigation

Cache JsonProvider.provider() result as per javadoc recommendation - #78

Open
gbloisi wants to merge 1 commit into
javaee:masterfrom
gbloisi:master
ConversationCommits (1)ChecksFiles changed
Open

Cache JsonProvider.provider() result as per javadoc recommendation#78
gbloisi wants to merge 1 commit into
javaee:masterfrom
gbloisi:master

Conversation

gbloisi commented Mar 18, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown

I got through this because I found a performance hostpot in calling Json methods (about 500 microsec per call on a i5)

rogersnm commented Apr 6, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown

+1, I'm serialising a large object and it takes about 2000ms on my machine currently. Switching to this implementation drops it down to 50ms.

keilw commented Apr 6, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

See jakartaee/jsonp-api#80 it seems there already is a similar PR in Jakarta EE. I doubt that this repository results in any new updates or releases.

m0mus requested review from bravehorsie and lukasj April 6, 2018 15:49

m0mus commented Apr 6, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@lukasj @bravehorsie Recently there were some similar PRs in different projects. I am not 100% convinced that it's needed. Folks, I want you to review it before letting it go.

bravehorsie suggested changes Apr 6, 2018
View reviewed changes
Comment thread api/src/main/java/javax/json/Json.java
*/
public final class Json {

static final JsonProvider PROVIDER = JsonProvider.provider();

bravehorsie Apr 6, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Choose a reason Spam Abuse Off Topic Outdated Duplicate Resolved Low Quality

Currently this would actually decrease performance with default implementation if JsonProvider is cached by client application (as it is supposed to). See

jsonp/impl/src/main/java/org/glassfish/json/JsonProviderImpl.java

Line 69 in 1341356

private final BufferPool bufferPool = new BufferPoolImpl();

When JsonProvider instance is cached like this buffer pool exists only once. Because it uses ConcurrentLinkedQueue it will decrease performance in multithreaded environment because of synchronization.

keilw Apr 9, 2018 •
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Choose a reason Spam Abuse Off Topic Outdated Duplicate Resolved Low Quality

I certainly see dangers making it final. That way for the lifetime of the Json class in a particular JVM it would remain the same even if the underlying provider may change (less likely without OSGi but possible for some implementations)
Keeping a static cache, maybe, as long as there's at least a protected or similar way to reset it, see how we did in JSR 363 with ServiceProvider or CDI.
I am not convinced we still need this in Java EE 8, maybe leave to a future (Jakarta EE) version of JSON-P?

lukasj suggested changes Apr 6, 2018
View reviewed changes

lukasj left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Choose a reason Spam Abuse Off Topic Outdated Duplicate Resolved Low Quality

same comments as in jakartaee/jsonp-api#80 apply here

This branch has not been deployed

No deployments
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters. Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Show hidden characters
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Reviewers

4 more reviewers
keilw keilw left review comments
lukasj lukasj requested changes
bravehorsie bravehorsie requested changes
jeck81 jeck81 approved these changes
Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants

Back | FazBrowse Home | New Git URL