|
Hi,
after some decompiling I discovered that a huge
amount of the code overhead is due to rather unexpected behaviour (at least for
me) of the
AspectJ compiler. It adds an extra set/get
method pair and field to every class it process. All these classes
implements a supplementary
interface - in my case it is called
ElAspect.ajcMightHaveAspect. It is very surprising for me because I thought
that the "within(com.kobrix.ticl.tags.*)"
in the perthis clause will limit those extra stuff only to the mentionned
package.
The only workaround that I've found is to use
"argfiles=com/kobrix/ticl/tags/myfile.lst"
attribute in the <iajc> task and specify there (in myfile.lst) the
classes that I want to be processed ("*.java" is accepted, but not for exemple
"*Tag.java"). Unfortunately I'cant use any patterns to specify somehow
only the needed files from this dir. Copying those files to another dir and
specifying it in "srcdir" attribute doesn't seems to work, nor using
<sourceroots>. So now I have a very strange build script, which
firstly builds the jar without AspectJ, moves it to the classpath,
then calls <iajc> with myfile.lst, compiled files overwrite
the previous ones, and then the resulting stuff is jared. No need
to tell that this is at least ugly, but it saves me around 200K unneeeded
code...
I'd like to ask if you know a better pattern for
this rather common problem. Thanks in advance, Konstantin
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 11:11
AM
Subject: Re: [aspectj-users] Reducing
code overhead
Thanks for help. Unfortunately the difference is
about 10K only. Maybe that's because I can't replace the around advices.
Mistakingly I've uncommented the proceed()-s in the sample code.
I would like to ask you another question: Is it
possible to eliminate from advicing sone tags, which are "empty" - e.g
they don't contain any setters? I would like to do this by pointcuts, not by
enumerating them, because their number is around 30 and this could change
in the future.
Thanks in advance,
Konstantin
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 3:02
PM
Subject: Re: [aspectj-users] Reducing
code overhead
Try replacing the around
advice with before - there will be less code generated and it doesn't look
like you actually need around advice in this instance. By avoiding
non-static use of thisJoinPoint (the call to getArgs()) you'll get
additional savings too.
So,
> void around()
: setters() || setters1()
> {
>
Object arg = thisJoinPoint.getArgs()[0];
>
if(arg != null)
>
savedAttributes_.put(thisJoinPoint.getSignature().getName(), arg);
>
proceed();
>
}
becomes:
before(Object arg) : (setters() || setters1()) &&
args(arg) {
if (arg !=
null)
savedAttributes_.put(thisJoinPointStaticPart.getSignature().getName(),arg);
}
and
> void around()
: special_setters() || special_setters1()
> {
>
Object arg = thisJoinPoint.getArgs()[0];
>
if(arg != null)
>
savedAttributes_.remove(thisJoinPoint.getSignature().getName());
>
proceed();
>
}
becomes:
before(Object
arg) : (special_setters() || special_setters1()) && args(arg)
{
if (arg != null)
savedAttributes_.remove(thisJoinPointStaticPart.getSignature().getName(),arg);
}
I'm
curious to know how much of a difference this makes in your system...
--
Adrian
Adrian_Colyer@xxxxxxxxxx
aspectj-users-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 23/04/2004
12:05:28:
> Hi,
> We decided to use AspectJ in our product
TICL. I wrote an aspect and
> everything is working, but there's
a
> quite big overhead and the resulting jar has grow with around
400K. So I'd
> like to ask for some advices how
> to cut down
this overhead. Let me fisrt descrive what is our aspect supposed
> to
do. We have a bunch of
> classes (around 90) representing custom JSP
tags, which should be modified
> in a way to provide EL
support.
> We have written such classes too, but because the
code is very similar, we
> decided to use an aspect to get
> rid
of those EL classes. So what is our aspect supposed to do: it should
>
intercept all doStartTag(), doEndTag()
> methods, and all setters. The
string setters should be handled differently
> that all other setters.
I've applided every
> possible restriction taht i'm aware of, but I'm
not an AspectJ expert, so
> i'd like to ask you for some help.
>
The code is given below:
>
> aspect ElAspect
perthis(tags())
> {
> pointcut tags():
(this(TICLTagSupport+) || this(TICLBodyTagSupport+))
>
&& within(com.kobrix.ticl.tags.*) &&
>
!within(com.kobrix.ticl.tags.el.*);
>
> //calls
that must pass without our modifications
> pointcut
spec(): withincode(void ElAspect.restoreAttributes(Object)) ||
>
withincode(void
ElAspect.saveAndEvaluateAttributes(Object));
>
>
pointcut setters(): execution(public void
TICLTagSupport+.set*(String))
> &&
target(TICLTagSupport+)&& !cflow(spec());
>
pointcut setters1(): execution(public void
>
TICLBodyTagSupport+.set*(String)) && target(TICLBodyTagSupport+)
&&
> !cflow(spec());
>
> void
around() : setters() || setters1()
> {
>
Object arg = thisJoinPoint.getArgs()[0];
>
if(arg != null)
>
savedAttributes_.put(thisJoinPoint.getSignature().getName(),
arg);
> proceed();
>
}
>
> pointcut special_setters():
call(public void TICLTagSupport+.set*(*))
>
&& !call(public void TICLTagSupport+.set*(String))
&&
> target(TICLTagSupport+);
> pointcut
special_setters1(): call(public void TICLTagSupport+.set*(*))
>
&& !call(public void TICLBodyTagSupport+.set*(String))
&&
> target(TICLBodyTagSupport+);
>
>
>
void around() : special_setters() ||
special_setters1()
> {
>
Object arg = thisJoinPoint.getArgs()[0];
>
if(arg != null)
>
savedAttributes_.remove(thisJoinPoint.getSignature().getName());
>
proceed();
> }
>
> pointcut doStartTag(Object tag): execution(public
int
> TICLTagSupport+.doStartTag())
> &&
target(tag) && !cflowbelow(execution(public int
>
TICLTagSupport+.doStartTag()));
> pointcut
doStartTag1(Object tag): execution(public int
>
TICLBodyTagSupport+.doStartTag()) &&
>
target(tag) && !cflowbelow(execution(public int
>
TICLBodyTagSupport+.doStartTag()));
>
>
before(Object tag) : doStartTag(tag) || doStartTag1(tag)
>
{
>
saveAndEvaluateAttributes(tag);
> }
>
>
pointcut doEndTag(TICLTagSupport tag): execution(public
int
> TICLTagSupport+.doEndTag())
> &&
this(tag) && !cflowbelow(execution(public int
>
TICLTagSupport+.doEndTag()));
> pointcut
doEndTag1(TICLBodyTagSupport tag): execution(public int
>
TICLBodyTagSupport+.doEndTag())
> && this(tag)
&& !cflowbelow(execution(public int
>
TICLBodyTagSupport+.doEndTag()));
>
>
after(Object tag) : doEndTag(tag) || doEndTag1(tag)
>
{
> restoreAttributes(tag);
>
}
>
> //setXXX/value
>
private final Map savedAttributes_ = new HashMap();
>
>
private void saveAndEvaluateAttributes(Object tag)
>
{
> //some code here
>
}
>
> private void
restoreAttributes(Object tag)
> {
>
//some code here
> }
> }
>
> All the tags are subclasses of TICLBodyTagSupport or
TICLTagSupport.
>
> Thanks in advance, Konstantin
>
_______________________________________________
> aspectj-users
mailing list
> aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
|
