Brett created the 2.1.x branch on Aug 12. I believe it was from whatever
was currently in the 2.0.x branch at the time. The work I am doing is
against that branch but I haven't committed anything yet. I still have
quite a bit of testing to do. I would prefer to just have whatever is
in 2.0.10-RC merged to 2.1.x. I can't imagine it would be that big of a
deal.
If I am understanding correctly, does this mean the 2.0.x branch does
not have the changes that are causing the performance problems?
Brian E. Fox wrote:
I agree. We'd have to figure out how to merge Dan's reactor changes in
as I'm not sure where the 2.1 branch came from that he used. I would
probably rename the current 2.0.10 branch to 2.1.x, then merge the
branch dan used into it. We could then port the real bug fixes from the
current 2.0.10 back to the 2.0.x branch and do a new 2.0.10. Confused
yet?
-----Original Message-----
From: John Casey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 1:32 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: 2.0.10 performance.....
I'd say the 2.0.10 release ought to become 2.1.0. I think most of us are
thinking similar things at this point (based on conversations I've seen
here and on IRC), and its implementation is certainly different enough
to warrant it.
Ralph Goers wrote:
I'm still wondering if given the impact this has shouldn't it be
pulled
from 2.0.x and moved into 2.1? In my view the purpose of 2.1.x is it
lock down 2.0.x to bug fixes that don't introduce new behaviors.
John Casey wrote:
So, I've been working on the hotspots (late last night and again this
morning) trying to see what improvements I could make. In the end, I
was able to improve things a bit in terms of interpolation efficiency
and model cloning (turned out that was a big time sink too). However,
in the end I think the sheer number of transitions between concrete
and dynamic state are just crushing the life out of this.
I talked briefly with you, Dan, yesterday about detecting whether
some
key parts of the project/model graph had changed, and using those to
trigger a concrete -> dynamic transition...otherwise, leaving the
project in concrete mode until such a trigger trips. Thinking about
this more, I think we could easily cover 90% of use cases with this
approach, right off the bat. From that point, we could probably hone
the detection system over time to pick up on anything we missed. I
think this has a lot of potential to improve the performance numbers,
and it's something I've just started to pursue here.
I'm not wild about adding the new annotation for now, simply because
of the time and pain involved in bringing all of the affected plugins
up to snuff (they'd have to have new releases as well). As for
detecting project-state changes in the plugin itself (or the POM, as
Brian asked about) we'd have to scan the entire logic of the mojo
(and
classes it used) to see whether any of it modified the project/model
graph...which is obviously waaaay too heavy to do at runtime.
Additionally, as for adding a command-line option: this would
definitely work, but it would be putting the onus on the user to
adapt
to our deficient design. It would inevitably increase the confusion
around the use of Maven ("When do I use the dynamic flag, when can I
skip it...why should I care?") and in any case I'm concerned about
building up more legacy to support in things like that, once we find
a
real solution to the problem.
For now, I'm going to look more closely into these trigger values.
Please let me know if you have any ideas...
Thanks,
-john
Daniel Kulp wrote:
The latest stuff on John's branch is "better", but it's still about
4x - 5x slower for some of the actions I do several times a day.
I'd estimate that I'd end up wasting 20-30 minutes a day waiting for
it compared to 2.0.9. I find that unacceptable and wouldn't be able
to recommend it get rolled out to other developers. I couldn't
"cost justify" reducing the productivity of everyone.
However, the dynamic re-interpretation stuff is needed due to a few
plugins doing some strange things. (clover, cobertura, etc...)
The
problem is that it causes a major slowdown for ALL plugins, even the
"well behaved" plugins.
My suggestion would be:
1) Leave the reinterpret code in, but turn it off by default. Add
a
command line flag or system property to turn it on in the cases that
it's needed. The default behavior would be no worse than 2.0.9.
2) Extend the plugin model to add a "@modifiesBuildEnvironment" or
something similar so a plugin can let the execution environment know
that special care will need to be taken after this plugin runs.
Once that is in place, future versions of the affected plugins could
set that to make sure things work correctly.
Thoughts?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
