Good idea. I'll pass my monster schema through a profiler and see what
turns up.
Any improvement in startup time would be appreciated!
Kohsuke Kawaguchi wrote:
> Kenny MacLeod wrote:
>> A have a slightly unusual request here, but what would be involved in
>> making com.sun.xml.bind.v2.runtime.JaxbContextImpl serializable?
>>
>> I ask because I'm playing with writing a mechanism which can serialize
>> the context to a disk file in order to improve application startup
>> time (JAXBContext construction for a complex schema is *very* expensive).
>>
>> I could just use an alternative serialization mechanism which doesn't
>> require java.iot.Serializable (e.g. JBoss Serialization or XStream),
>> but I'd rather just use vanilla java.
>
> Making JAXBContext serializable is an interesting idea. I'll go ahead
> and implement it.
>
> However, because the serialization has to be compatible with future
> changes, and due to the nature of what JAXBRIContext holds on to
> (synthesized classes, etc), it is unlikely that you'll gain any
> performance improvement out of it, compared to JAXBContext.newInstance()
> --- in fact, in all likelihood what I'll implement in
> readObject/writeObject would be just to invoke JAXBContext.newInstance()
> again.
>
> Now, we do realize that the start-up performance of the RI has a
> problem. This has been mostly because our benchmark metric is usually
> driven by web service folks, where they care a lot more about the
> sustained performance, so in a way our goal was skewed.
>
> Your post is very timely because I was actually thinking about
> improvements in this area. Would you be interested in helping me? Like
> if you can a benchmark and see which part of JAXBContext.newInstance()
> is hot, that would really help me.
>
> I can do this on my own, by using some random schema, but I thought you
> might like the idea that we are optimizing toward your schema!
>
>
>