Haha, all 444 belongs to me! https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OWB-444 http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/SCM-444
:) LieGrue, strub ----- Original Message ---- > From: David Blevins <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Mon, August 30, 2010 7:34:57 AM > Subject: Re: Possible static elimination > > > On Aug 29, 2010, at 9:45 PM, Mark Struberg wrote: > > > Yes David. As posted in some Jira issue I'd like to aim for moving all > > those > > > little helper classes as members to BeanManager and giving them a back >reference > > > to 'their' BeanManager. So all the 'helpers' can accessed via e.g. > > bm.getDefinitionUtil(); and definitionUtil can easily access the > > BeanManager >via > > > the back reference it got with the constructer as bm. > > > > This way we would be able to keep utils which are perfectly pre-configured >for > > > each webapp and additionally eliminate most of the unnecessary calls. > > > > wdyt? > > Count me in for helping with that :) Would be a fantastic change. > > > Oh yea, all work on this will be done after -alpha-2 of course ;) > > Anxiously waiting :) > > > -David > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > >> From: David Blevins <[email protected]> > >> To: [email protected] > >> Sent: Mon, August 30, 2010 2:51:00 AM > >> Subject: Possible static elimination > >> > >> Sort of a big topic and I'd like to throw this out there to get a feel of >where > > >> people's heads are at. > >> > >> The basis of the architecture is static methods with hash table lookups > >> on >the > > >> other end. There are about 110 static uses to BeanManager.getManager() > >> in >impl > > >> alone and each one of those is a hashtable lookup. At runtime it's in >the > > >> thousands. > >> > >> This is making integration very hard and also performs quite badly due > >> to > >> continuous cost of lookups. > >> > >> Is there any interest in moving away from this and start peeling some of >these > > >> away? > >> > >> > >> > >> -David > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
