Hi,
it's the same classloader. 80% of the time is spent in
java.lang.Class.forName(String, boolean, ClassLoader). In my performance
test case the serialization is about 100 times faster if I do not
include the type system (serializeCAS instead of serializeCASComplete)
I'll stick to other serialization methods for now.
Best,
Peter
Am 15.03.2016 um 22:17 schrieb Marshall Schor:
> I'm not sure of your use case in detail, but if the JCas classes have been
> loaded, they can't be "reloaded" - the calls to Class.forName, or
> classLoader.loadClass would find the named object already loaded, and just
> return that. (This assumes you're using the same class loader, of course).
>
> This whole area is somewhat cleaned up in the experimental UIMA v3. There,
> when
> you commit a type system, it's compared to existing type systems previously
> committed, and if one of those is "equal", it's used instead.
>
> This was a bit involved to do; the saving is done using weak references, so
> things would eventually get cleaned up, and there were issues with test cases
> which built type systems programmatically, and kept java references to types
> and
> features before the commit, which became invalid after the commit (fix was to
> re-compute these handles after the commit).
>
> If you know the type system is identical, you could cobble something up to
> avoid
> reinitializing it, I think.
>
>
> -Marshall
>
> On 3/15/2016 1:21 PM, Peter Klügl wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I wonder if it is necessary to load all JCas cover classes anew if the
>> jcas is deserialized with deserializeCASComplete.
>>
>> In JCasImpl line 645, the map is null because the type system instance
>> changed in the serialization (no equals()).
> ??? line 645 in trunk:
>
> private void expandTypeArrayIfNeeded() {
> if (typeArray.length < JCasRegistry.getNumberOfRegisteredClasses()) {
> TOP_Type[] newTypeArray = new
> TOP_Type[JCasRegistry.getNumberOfRegisteredClasses()];
> System.arraycopy(typeArray, 0, newTypeArray, 0, typeArray.length);
> typeArray = newTypeArray; // <<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Line 645
> }
> }
>> There there a way to avoid that?
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Peter
>>
