Not sure. I just searched over the tests yesterday and we didn't had tests
for a generic ProcessManagedBean, so i added the new ones.
I will do some more tests.

Am Di., 16. Okt. 2018 um 08:24 Uhr schrieb Mark Struberg
<strub...@yahoo.de.invalid>:

> Didn't we have a test for generic types already?
> E.g. ProcessAnnotatedType<Poodle> vs ProcessAnnotatedType<Sheep>
> And one type layer down
> ProcessAnnotatedType<Housingl<Poodle>> vs
> ProcessAnnotatedType<Housing<Sheep>>
>
> If we don't have this kind of test yet then we should add one.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
> > Am 15.10.2018 um 11:23 schrieb Thomas Andraschko <
> andraschko.tho...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > ok... i totally forgot about generic lifecycle events...
> >
> > I will try to just optimize the current NotificationManager, without
> adding
> > a breaking cache :D
> >
> > Am Fr., 12. Okt. 2018 um 16:48 Uhr schrieb Thomas Andraschko <
> > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com>:
> >
> >> ok, will provide a better patch on monday!
> >>
> >> Am Fr., 12. Okt. 2018 um 16:44 Uhr schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <
> >> rmannibu...@gmail.com>:
> >>
> >>> We can surely clean it up after startup but looks good
> >>>
> >>> Le ven. 12 oct. 2018 17:16, Thomas Andraschko <
> >>> andraschko.tho...@gmail.com>
> >>> a écrit :
> >>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> as you already may know from the TomEE/BVal mailing list, i'm not
> happy
> >>>> with the startup performance since TomEE8.
> >>>>
> >>>> TomEE7 OWB startup ~ 4,5seconds
> >>>> TomEE8 OWB startup ~ 9seconds
> >>>>
> >>>> i finally managed to improve the performance on 2 places.
> >>>>
> >>>> 1) Filter framework classes in BVal on PAT
> >>>>    Reduces the startup to ~8seconds
> >>>>
> >>>> 2) Cache obervers for systemEvents in
> >>> NotificationManager#resolveObservers
> >>>>    Reduces the starup to ~7 seconds
> >>>>    Patch:
> >>>> https://gist.github.com/tandraschko/de4c72c22e65aaefe041af5a15d110e3
> >>>>
> >>>> Do you think the patch is ok or could it break something?
> >>>> I would be happy if mark or romain could improve it :D
> >>>>
> >>>> Best regards,
> >>>> Thomas
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
>
>

Reply via email to