deltaspike repository

today we got our git repository for deltaspike: https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator-deltaspike.git

5th release of myfaces-extensions-validator

The Apache MyFaces team is pleased to announce the 5th release of Apache MyFaces Extensions Validator (aka ExtVal).

deltaspike mailing lists

today matt benson created our mailing lists and the first tests were successful: http://goo.gl/oRFtU and http://goo.gl/DZix0

thx matt!

deltaspike joins the asf incubator

the vote to join the incubator was closed. there were 8 binding +1 votes, 3 non-binding +1 votes and no -1 votes. in parallel several other folks showed up and told us that they are interested to join the effort.

9th release of myfaces-extensions-cdi

The Apache MyFaces team is pleased to announce the 9th release of Apache MyFaces Extensions CDI (aka CODI). It's v1.0.2!

deltaspike - the future of myfaces codi (is bright)

today we announced the future of myfaces codi.

that means: codi goes apache tlp (top level project) together with others (esp. the seam3 team and the cdi-source team). as mentioned in the announcement: we will continue with codi. several features will be promoted to deltaspike and codi v2 will be based on deltaspike and will provide all features which won't be available in deltaspike itself. codi v1 will continue (it will be improved and maintained as it is and won't migrate to deltaspike).

[scopes] render-scope vs flash-scoped vs codi scopes

frameworks like seam provide a so called render-scope e.g. to use beans after a redirect for rendering the next page. that's very often not enough because beans are usually also needed on a subsequent request to the same page. the flash scope is also not the best solution because it's usually also used to overcome the redirect issue of request scoped beans. therefore, myfaces codi introduced the view-access-scope which keeps beans as long as they are accessed by a view (also supports any kind of ajax scenarios). however, if you really need the behaviour of @RenderScoped, you can use e.g. the @PostRenderView callback to terminate beans (which have one of the codi scopes) manually or you can provide a custom marker and you terminate all beans with this marker automatically in a phase-listener. the needed information is available in the wiki (or just contact the myfaces mailing list, if you need further information about it).

[myfaces] setup of codi and extval

in the last weeks i saw a lot of users looking for information about setting up and/or configuring extval and/or codi.

the simple answer: both don't required configuration by default.
zero config allows you to add the jar files you would like to use to your project and that's it.
(in case of codi you have to ensure that you have configured the cdi implementation of your choice correctly. in case of the bv module of extval, you have to ensure that you added the bv implementation of your choice.)

information about the libs is available in the corresponding wiki which is liked on the official website of each project. please check the wiki and/or send a mail to the mailing list.

8th release of myfaces-extensions-cdi

The Apache MyFaces team is pleased to announce the 8th release of Apache MyFaces Extensions CDI (aka CODI). It's v1.0.1!

[scopes] view-scope vs view-access-scope

a lot of people were looking for this information.
you can find the information in the wiki of codi.

however, the short answer is:
the view-scope of jsf2+ is bound to a concrete jsf page. that means: as soon as you navigate to a different page, the state gets lost. that's better than nothing, but not useful for a lot of use-cases. the main use-case which needs it are ajax-requests on a page and the data used by them aren't needed on other pages, but it's pretty easy to break it e.g. with a browser-refresh on a page which stores the data in a view-scoped bean and has no form with input components. (in a previous blog post i described how to use the infrastructure provided by codi to create a session based view-scope to overcome such disadvantages cause by storing view scoped beans as part of the tree-state.)

like with the view-scope view-access-scoped beans are available on a page, but they also exist for the next page. that means: they are forwarded to the next page and get destroyed autom. if they don't get used during the first request of the next page. that's e.g. useful for wizards. if you have a wizard page which doesn't use the bean or you have to support the possibility to interrupt a wizard, you can use the grouped-conversation scope (and even the window-scope) provided by codi. however, due to the powerful api of codi you can also destroy the scope manually at any time (if needed).

[benchmark] boost myfaces codi scopes with owb v1.1.1

this is my last blog-entry about the performance of cdi implementations and codi scopes which is planned for the next months. why? you will see it in a minute.

within the last weeks we gave the weld team some hints how they can tweak the performance of their scopes. as you can see in the following benchmark, they improved the performance of std. scopes in weld a lot. the performance of the std. scopes is now pretty much the same as with owb. all differences are within the tolerance. however, the owb team (special thx to mark) is again one step ahead. the next release of owb (v1.1.1) will allow to use a very fast instance cache for custom scopes. based on this feature, i implemented the scope-boost add-on for codi. the result/s you can see in the chart: codi scopes are as fast as the request scope of owb. a nice detail about that: since owb v1.1.1 is faster than v1.1.0, codi scopes (+ add-on) in combination with owb v1.1.1 are faster than the (already very fast) request scope of owb v1.1.0 (you might remember the awesome results of the previous benchmarks).

as you know the results depend on a lot of parameters. anyway, the following charts should give you a basic impression about the difference. on my system i can reproduce the overall results (tolerance: <0,25ms). all application servers were started without changes in the configuration. for producing the other results i used again tomcat v7.0.19. in this benchmark the servers aren't that important, because there is no class of those servers between the method call and the final method of the bean (just the proxies used by the cdi implementation). that means jboss as7 as well as glassfish v3 are just slower because they don't ship the latest version of weld. for sure - if you upgrade your server, you will get a better performance with those servers.

the result:
as mentioned before std. scopes in weld (the currently latest release) and owb have about the same performance. in case of custom scopes owb can be way faster in combination with special add-ons for the corresponding custom scopes. the add-ons are needed to reset the cached instances, if the scope ends before the request ends. in case of codi you still have all advantages of codi-scopes as well as the performance of the request scope. that's possible due to the awesome concepts in owb as well as the UnscopeBeanEvent of codi. (please notice that weld v1.1.2 which is called "standalone" in this chart is a newer version compared to weld v1.1.2 shipped with jboss as7 out-of-the-box. the newer version already has the performance improvements mentioned before. that's the reason for the difference (and it isn't related to jboss as7))

(the lower - the better)

for this benchmark i used the simple benchmark which i used for my first post (as well as the same steps to measure the performance). in the previous benchmark i switched to jmeter because users were interested in the overall impact. this time i (again) used the simpler version because of some fluctuations with jmeter tests. besides the typical parameters which can influence the results, load tests are less reproducible e.g. because of several features of modern cpus. however, the previous posts are still valid. after publishing them i re-tested the benchmarks with different systems as well as different jdk implementations, operating systems,... . for sure the results differed a bit, but the overall result was more or less the same (esp. the ranking). however, as mentioned in the previous posts as well as in this post, these benchmarks should give you a basic impression. you might see a bit different results on your system, but the overall result is usually the same - esp. the basic messages illustrated by this benchmark:

- owb is innovative, pluggable and fast
- owb + codi == just awesome
- weld got a lot faster in the latest release
- servers which bundle old versions of weld are slower because they depend on the performance of those versions -> update the versions as soon as you can and you will increase the performance of your applications deployed to those servers for free!

[benchmark] myfaces codi scopes - weld vs owb part 3

in the previous benchmark i basically compared the scope performance of owb and weld with direct calls. this time i'm using jmeter to measure the performance under heavy load of a whole page. in the previous benchmarks the results were pretty stable. that's different this time. the results fluctuate way more and with some servers i (sometimes) got an OutOfMemoryError (depending on the settings). however, the conditions for the benchmark were the same for all servers:
- starting the server
- opening the page (which will be used for the jmeter tests)
- specifying how many el-expressions should be tested
- starting the jmeter benchmark

pages with 100, 1.000, 5.000 and 10.000 el-expressions were used for the benchmark.

all application servers were started without changes in the configuration. in tomcat mojarra 2.1.3 was used instead of myfaces-core to avoid an impact on the result e.g. due to a differing performance of renderers.

every value-binding in the page queried the value of a conversation scoped bean (codi conversations). this bean delegates the call to an injected request scoped bean. and the request scoped bean delegates to an application scoped bean which caches the list of objects which should be displayed.

as you know the results depend on a lot of parameters. anyway, the following charts should give you a basic impression about the difference. on my system i can reproduce the overall results.

the result:
esp. tests of pages with few el-expressions didn't show a huge difference between the servers, but the results fluctuated more compared to pages with a lot of el-expressions. as you see, tomcat 7 with owb is a bit better than tomcat 7 with weld and jboss as 7. in the end the difference is not big compared to glassfish v3.1.1. the following chart should give you a basic idea about a page which uses 100 value-bindings. that might sound a lot, but a page which contains a table with 4 columns and 15 rows already leads to 60 el-calls during the rendering phase only to display the values (in case of one displayed value per cell). and if you think about the rendered attribute or expressions to switch the formatting within cells dynamically,... you will get over 100 el-calls in the rendering phase very easily.

(the higher - the better)

as mentioned before i benchmarked the page with different amounts of el-expressions. the following chart shows the average of the throughput in percent. the fastest setup (in this case tomcat 7 + owb 1.1.0) is used as measuring staff.

(the higher - the better)

it might be interesting to see the results of the benchmarks above in a different context. the following charts shows the overhead in percentage. a static html page with the same content served by jsf on tomcat 7 is the basis for the comparison and would have 0% (that means: no overhead).

(the lower - the better)

measurements beyond hello word:
there are applications with even larger pages. the following chart shows the numbers for 30.000 value bindings per page. compared to the value-bindings of the benchmark above, it uses more complex bindings like
#{bean1.bean2.bean3.property} instead of directly delegating to a property of the first bean which resolves the final property. as you see owb gets even better with more complex scenarios.

(the higher - the better)

as mentioned before i used the settings which are shipped by the vendors out-of-the-box. since they are different i run the same constellation described above with 1.000 (instead of 30.000) value bindings per page. the following chart shows the result with -Xms128m -Xmx1500m -XX:MaxPermSize=256m (these values are the highest values used at least by one of the servers).

(the higher - the better)

codi meets scala

werner wrote nice blog entries about using scala in combination with jsf. in the second part he shows the basic approach how to implement the type-safe view-config the scala way. let's hope we will see a follow-up about nice view-config features like multiple inheritance of configs (like a SecuredPages interface).

[benchmark] myfaces codi scopes - owb vs weld part 2

the last few days we heard a lot about how great jboss as 7 (jboss application server v7) should be. i already tested the pre-release version concerning the compatibility with codi. it worked pretty well. that was awesome. in this test i'm using the final version which starts in a bit more than 2 sec. (on my machine). but now it's time to measure the runtime performance. therefore i used the latest releases of all containers. (just in case of glassfish i used the nightly of glassfish v3.2 to be able to use the latest version.) in case of jboss as 7 and glassfish v3 i took the weld versions they provide out of the box and on tomcat 7 and jetty 7 i used the current openwebbeans (= owb) release.

the result - jboss as 7 starts quite fast but the runtime performance is still better with a servlet container like tomcat or jetty + owb. however, i'm glad to see that there is a step forward from weld v1.1.1 to v1.1.2 but there is still a lot of room for improvements.

the tested scopes are the scopes provided by myfaces codi (with the exception of the request scope - it's just included as an orientation). the most significant result in the first chart is that the slowest scope (which is still very fast) is faster with owb than the fastest scope with weld. (if you keep the tolerance in mind we could say it's maybe not faster but as least equivalent.)

as you know the results depend on a lot of parameters. anyway, the following charts should give you a basic impression about the difference. on my system i can reproduce the results (tolerance: <0,25ms). the benchmark invokes a method of an injected bean 1000 times. the benchmark was started 3 times and the chart shows the rounded average.

as you see there are more or less the same results in tomcat and jetty. the results depend on the cdi version and not the container. the differences are within the tolerance. the difference between glassfish and jboss as 7 is caused by the newer version of weld in jboss as 7. so independent of how fast jboss as 7 is (e.g. during startup), the runtime-performance depends on parts like the used cdi implementation. this benchmark shows what you get out-of-the-box. for sure with servlet containers like tomcat, jetty,... you have the choice. if performance is important for your project, go with owb (it's already used by several big real world projects, it's fast, very solid and provides a powerful spi to customize the behaviour if you need to).


so it might be interesting to compare the currently released versions directly:

note:
owb has a special proxy for request scoped beans - that's the reason why there is such a huge difference.

codi for all - all for codi

it's really great. people notify us about successful tests on different environments.

now codi is tested on:
- Tomcat
- TomEE
- Jetty
- JEE 6 Application-Servers (JBossAS, WebSphere, Glassfish)
- JEE 5 Application-Servers (WLS, WebSphere,...)
- dmServer

an up to date list and further details are available here.

7th release of myfaces-extensions-cdi -> v1

The Apache MyFaces team is pleased to announce the 7th release of Apache MyFaces Extensions CDI (aka CODI). It's v1.0.0!

codi meets jboss as 7

since jboss application server v7 (jboss as 7) is short before the beta 4 and rc1 release, i tested the latest head with the latest version of codi. as tweeted, everything worked well. all workarounds for mojarra and weld we had to use for glassfish v3 also work on as7.

goodbye ubuntu - welcome mint (ubuntu.better)

since years i'm using ubuntu. most of the time it worked pretty well. since some weeks i'm testing mint linux (it's based on ubuntu) as well as the current snapshots of other more famous dists like fedora. now i completely switched to mint. the original reason was gnome 2 but it turned out that they do a lot of things way better and i can use it as it is (i even like the design).

since i like their vision, i hope that i can keep it as long as possible.

session based view-scope with codi

codi itself offers an adapter for the view-scope of jsf2+ as well as a view-access scope which sounds similar but is something completely different (there is a 2nd blog entry about the difference). this entry is not about the view-access scope. it's about the view-scope which was introduced by jsf2. the adapter provided by codi allows you to bind cdi beans to the view-scope of jsf2+ directly. that's the reason why it's only available for jsf2+ whereas the other scopes of codi can be used with jsf1.2 as well as jsf2+. however, besides the basic concept of the view-scope, the default implementation has also some disadvantages (like losing the state in case of a browser-refresh, if there is no form with input components). if you haven't faced such issues, you might skip this blog entry. as mentioned before there is no standard way for jsf1.2 users to use the view-scope of jsf2+.

after several questions about it i decided to implement a codi-add-on which can be used with jsf1.2 as well as with jsf2+. due to the powerful spi of codi, the result is a simple implementation which offers additional features like grouped beans (you can manually destroy beans of the same group immediately even though you stay on the  same page), optional bean events,... .

it's e.g. problematic for some use-cases that the jsf2+ implementation of the view-scope stores the beans in the component tree. so several users ask for a session based view-scope. that means the beans for a page will be stored in the session instead of the component tree. if you really need such a scope instead of the view-access-scope provided by codi, you can implement such a scope with the spi of codi + two simple classes.

approach #1

the first one is a marker annotation and the second one an observer for the PreViewConfigNavigateEvent. that's it! if you only use the type-safe navigation of codi, you are done and you annotate your bean with @View and the @ConversationScoped annotation provided by codi. as soon as a navigation to a new page is detected all conversation scoped beans annotated with @View will be destroyed.

	@ApplicationScoped
	public class SimulatedViewScopeObserver
	{
	protected void observeNavigation(
	@Observes PreViewConfigNavigateEvent preViewConfigNavigateEvent,
	EditableWindowContext editableWindowContext)
	{
	if (!preViewConfigNavigateEvent.getFromView()
	.equals(preViewConfigNavigateEvent.getToView()))
	{
	for(Map.Entry<ConversationKey, EditableConversation> conversation :
	editableWindowContext.getConversations().entrySet())
	{
	if(ConversationScoped.class
	.isAssignableFrom(conversation.getKey().getScope()))
	{
	if(conversation.getKey().getConversationGroup()
	.isAnnotationPresent(View.class))
	{
	conversation.getValue().close();
	}
	}
	}
	}
	}
	}

view raw SimulatedViewScopeObserver.java hosted with ❤ by GitHub

	@Target({TYPE})
	@Retention(RUNTIME)
	@Documented
	public @interface View
	{
	}

view raw View.java hosted with ❤ by GitHub

if you don't use the type-safe navigation of codi, you can implement e.g. a custom jsf navigation handler which does the same for all navigations.

if you prefer a single annotation instead (let's call it @MyViewScoped), you can write a portable cdi extension which adds the @ConversationScoped dynamically to all beans which are annotated with @MyViewScoped.

it took longer to write this blog entry, than implementing this mechanism :)

or

approach #2

the result of this approach is the same like approach #1. the advantage is that you don't have to care about the navigation and the disadvantage is that you have to extend a default implementation.

if you are ok with extending the default implementation (with weld you have to #veto the default implementation instead of using @Specializes), you can override the default implementation of #createConversation (a method which is part of the spi of codi). if you just implement the interface, you would override everything and you would deactivate all codi scopes. ok - so let's add a new scope with the same marker annotation and a ConversationFactory instead of the observer:

	class ViewConversationExpirationEvaluator
	implements ConversationExpirationEvaluator
	{
	private static final long serialVersionUID = -1298186767354202960L;
	private String viewId;
	private boolean expired;
	ViewConversationExpirationEvaluator()
	{
	if(FacesContext.getCurrentInstance().getViewRoot() != null)
	{
	this.viewId = FacesContext.getCurrentInstance()
	.getViewRoot().getViewId();
	}
	}
	public boolean isExpired()
	{
	return this.viewId == null ||
	!this.viewId.equals(FacesContext.getCurrentInstance()
	.getViewRoot().getViewId());
	}
	public void touch()
	{
	if(this.viewId == null && !this.expired)
	{
	this.viewId = FacesContext.getCurrentInstance()
	.getViewRoot().getViewId();
	}
	}
	public void expire()
	{
	this.viewId = null;
	this.expired = true;
	}
	}

view raw ViewConversationExpirationEvaluator.java hosted with ❤ by GitHub

	@Target({TYPE})
	@Retention(RUNTIME)
	@Documented
	public @interface ViewConversationScoped
	{
	}

view raw ViewConversationScoped.java hosted with ❤ by GitHub

	@Specializes
	public class ViewScopeAwareConversationFactory extends JsfAwareConversationFactory
	{
	private static final long serialVersionUID = 8809629790207239230L;
	@Inject
	private BeanManager beanManager;
	@Override
	public EditableConversation createConversation(
	ConversationKey conversationKey, ConversationConfig configuration)
	{
	if(conversationKey.getConversationGroup()
	.isAnnotationPresent(ViewConversationScoped.class))
	{
	return new DefaultConversation(conversationKey,
	new ViewConversationExpirationEvaluator(),
	configuration,
	this.beanManager);
	}
	return super.createConversation(conversationKey, configuration);
	}
	}

view raw ViewScopeAwareConversationFactory.java hosted with ❤ by GitHub

this implementation is compatible with all jsf concepts which are supported by codi!

approach #2.1

this approach is the same like #2 but instead of implementing it on our own, we can just use the @ViewConversationScoped provided by the enhanced-conversations add-on for codi:

	import org.os890.codi.addon.conversation.api.ViewConversationScoped;
	import javax.annotation.PostConstruct;
	import javax.inject.Named;
	import java.io.Serializable;
	import java.util.Date;
	@Named
	@ViewConversationScoped
	public class ViewConversationBean implements Serializable
	{
	private static final long serialVersionUID = 609266293914288287L;
	private Date createdAt;
	@PostConstruct
	protected void init()
	{
	this.createdAt = new Date();
	}
	public Date getCreatedAt()
	{
	return createdAt;
	}
	}

view raw ViewConversationBean.java hosted with ❤ by GitHub

new openwebbeans logo

6th release of myfaces-extensions-cdi

The Apache MyFaces team is pleased to announce the 6th release of Apache MyFaces Extensions CDI (aka CODI).

[slides] codi conversations

MyFaces CODI Conversations

5th release of myfaces-extensions-cdi

The Apache MyFaces team is pleased to announce the 5th release of Apache MyFaces Extensions CDI (aka CODI).

[benchmark] request scope - owb vs weld vs spring

after some performance improvements (see OWB-557) i did a simple benchmark in order to compare the request-scope of owb, weld and spring3 (with ScopedProxyMode.TARGET_CLASS). as you know the results depend on a lot of parameters. anyway, the following chart should give you a basic impression about the difference. on my system i can reproduce the results (tolerance: ~0,25ms). the benchmark invokes a method of an injected bean 1000 times. the benchmark was started 3 times and the chart shows the rounded average.

the benchmarks with the direct method calls use the injected beans directly. that means those benchmarks show the raw performance. the benchmarks with the el-resolver calls use the jsf-api for resolving the beans and therefore they show the performance of the el-resolver implementations.

note:
owb has a special proxy for request scoped beans - that's the reason why there is such a huge difference.

[benchmark] myfaces codi scopes - codi vs orchestra

i did a simple benchmark in order to compare codi (+ owb 1.1) and the scopes of orchestra (without persistence interceptor). as you know the results depend on a lot of parameters. anyway, the following chart should give you a basic impression about the difference. on my system i can reproduce the results (tolerance: ~0,25ms). the benchmark invokes a method of an injected bean 1000 times. the benchmark was started 3 times and the chart shows the rounded average.

the benchmarks with the direct method calls use the injected beans directly. that means those benchmarks show the raw performance. the benchmarks with the el-resolver calls use the jsf-api for resolving the beans and therefore they show the performance of the el-resolver implementations.

note:
owb has a special proxy for request scoped beans - that's the reason why there is such a huge difference.

[benchmark] myfaces codi scopes - OWB vs Weld

i did a simple benchmark in order to check if we have to optimize owb even more. therefore, i also compared it with the performance of weld. as you know the results depend on a lot of parameters. anyway, the following chart should give you a basic impression about the difference. on my system i can reproduce the results (tolerance: ~0,25ms). the benchmark invokes a method of an injected bean 1000 times. the benchmark was started 3 times and the chart shows the rounded average. due to the quite slow initialization in weld (the result would be ~3,8 ms in case of the request scope), so i had to execute the benchmark ~3 times before the result got stable (to keep it fair i did the same with owb even though the differences are not that high). the 3 runs are those runs after the numbers had been stabilized.

the benchmarks with the direct method calls use the injected beans directly. that means those benchmarks show the raw performance. the benchmarks with the el-resolver calls use the jsf-api for resolving the beans and therefore they show the performance of the el-resolver implementations of both cdi implementations.

this benchmark uses the weld version which is bundled with glassfish 3.1:

this benchmark uses the (currently) latest snapshot of weld (downloaded from the snapshot repository):

note:
owb has a special proxy for request scoped beans - that's the reason why there is such a huge difference.

apache myfaces pmc chair

now it's official - i'm the new pmc chair of myfaces.
i'll try to continue the great work of the previous chairs!

furthermore, i would like to thank matthias for being such a great chair!
i wish you all the best for your new job!

in my first blog-post as new pmc chair i would like to mention:
everybody is welcome to join our awesome community!


esp. those guys who congratulated me directly because they haven't subscribed one of our lists. ;)

you can also follow us (not only me) via:

[benchmark] myfaces codi scopes

after some performance improvements in owb (thx to mark!) and codi i created a benchmark for the upcoming versions (owb 1.1 and codi 0.9.4). as you know the results depend on a lot of parameters. anyway, the following chart should give you a basic impression about the performance of the myfaces scopes. on my system i can reproduce the results (tolerance: ~0,5 ms in the benchmark with security-manager). the benchmark invokes a method of a scoped bean via an el-expression 1000 times (i've used the el-ri). the benchmark was started 3 times and the chart shows the rounded average.

with a security-manager:

without a security-manager:

hint: this benchmark isn't comparable with the result(s) of the first benchmark back in 2010 because the test-system has more resources now.


furthermore, i compared the result with spring 3 and orchestra (tolerance: ~0,5 ms).

4th release of myfaces-extensions-cdi

The Apache MyFaces team is pleased to announce the 4th release of Apache MyFaces Extensions CDI (aka CODI).

codi examples with myfaces stylesheet

there are several examples for myfaces codi in the myfaces-repository. most of them are just dev examples esp. for an easier communication between members of the dev team. users might be confused because they don't know the intention of the details. therefore, i started with the first hello-world example which will be shipped with the next release. currently the example shows some simple use-cases. you will see further examples in the near future. all examples (which are available in the myfaces-repository) with the official myfaces-stylesheet might be interesting for users.

screenshot of the first example:

myfaces extensions @ spaaze

somehow different (click on):

codi meets the cloud

thx to matthias we have a first demo based on apache technologies which is deployed to a cloud infrastructure. as you can see the demo also includes myfaces codi!

apache member

last week i received an awesome invitation from matthias to become an asf member. i'm honored and accepted with pleasure! thx to all members!

3rd release of myfaces-extensions-cdi

The Apache MyFaces team is pleased to announce the 3rd release of Apache MyFaces Extensions CDI (aka CODI).