2008/9/29 Milos Kleint <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > more likely should be something that gets carried over with the > request. That however goes against the component architecture a bit as > it requires the context (request) to be carried along through all the > components. AFAIK workspace attempted to do just that, but I never > took a closer look. >
Yes, I agree... that would be the right way > > weak references are rather unpredictable and will not help for > concurrent processing in multiple threads. > However, they could be used to help caching... if the weak references are entirely managed in the caching layer then multiple threads would not be as much of an issue. I was not suggesting keeping the weak references in each plugin, rather wrap the builder in a cached builder that keeps weak references... It would also have the side-effect of allowing Maven (from the command line) to trade memory for performance when memory is running tight. (But, yes, in general they are a pane in the h*le) > > Milos > > On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 8:08 AM, Stephen Connolly > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > weakreferences? > > > > 2008/9/29 Shane Isbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >> When Jason tested the removal of the workspace, which handles caching of > >> MavenProjects, it exposed a lot of bad behaviors within Maven, such > >> multiple > >> instances of ProjectBuilder, excessive numbers of calls to > ProjectBuilder > >> (54K in one build of trunk). We put back in some simple caching > mechanisms > >> (hash maps) to get the build back to an acceptable speed. > >> Obviously, hash maps is not the solution for the embedder, as that would > be > >> a memory leak and doesn't provide easy clearing. That's something we > need > >> to > >> discuss on the list: how we should handle caching within Maven, as well > as > >> reducing the number of calls to the builder. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Shane > >> > >> On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 5:40 PM, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> > I was about to ask exactly the same question, Milos beat me to it. > >> > > >> > Can you elaborate more please? > >> > > >> > Thanks, > >> > Brett > >> > > >> > On 29/09/2008, at 8:12 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote: > >> > > >> > We're just in the middle of ripping some stuff down and building it > back > >> >> up. All with the end of making it embedder friendly. > >> >> > >> >> On 28-Sep-08, at 2:50 PM, Milos Kleint wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Hello Shane, > >> >>> > >> >>> How will the cache be cleared? Other than dumping and restarting the > >> >>> container? > >> >>> That would be a problem for embedded project loading. > >> >>> > >> >>> Milos > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> > -- > >> > Brett Porter > >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/ > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > 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] > >
