Ok thanks for the feedback
--G

2011/10/26 Lucas Galfaso <[email protected]>

> ... and that it is erased when a fragment is attached.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 1:46 PM, Felix Meschberger <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > We just have to make sure that such a cache would be bounded ...
> >
> > Regards
> > Felix
> >
> > Am 26.10.2011 um 18:25 schrieb Richard S. Hall:
> >
> >> On 10/26/11 05:02 , Guillaume Sauthier (OW2) wrote:
> >>> Hi all
> >>>
> >>> In one of our project we spotted an intensive usage of
> ZipFile.getEntry()
> >>> due to Felix trying to access the resource associated with a class when
> the
> >>> class is not defined yet. As the requested resource is not boot
> delegated,
> >>> nor imported and neither inside of the bundle, getEntry() returns null
> and
> >>> Felix continue to follow its classloading algorithm. But trying to
> access
> >>> the resource is time consumming, and the impact is bigger on
> performance
> >>> when the same resource is requested for each of our request.
> >>>
> >>> I agree that we could fix this by being more smart in our usage to
> avoid
> >>> theses error cases, but do you think it could be valuable for Felix to
> keep
> >>> a "cache" of failed resource request, so that, next time Felix try to
> >>> request the resource from the Bundle's content, we simply avoid this
> step
> >>> and move forward ?
> >>>
> >>> I feel that it should be quite easy to implement that behavior, but
> before
> >>> starting this task, I want to have your feedback.
> >>> So WDYT ?
> >>
> >> Actually, I thought we already implemented something like this, but I
> >> didn't see it in the code after a quick perusal. I know for a fact that
> >> we at least investigated it at one time, so if it is not in there
> >> already, we must have deemed that it didn't make much of a difference.
> >>
> >> If you want to open an issue and work on it, feel free to work on a
> >> patch, but please get some before and after performance numbers to show
> >> if it is worth it or not.
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >> -> richard
> >>
> >>>
> >>> --G
> >>>
> >
> >
>

Reply via email to