Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 13957 invoked from network); 13 Oct 2005 08:50:03 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 13 Oct 2005 08:50:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 17692 invoked by uid 500); 13 Oct 2005 08:50:00 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 17628 invoked by uid 500); 13 Oct 2005 08:50:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 17616 invoked by uid 99); 13 Oct 2005 08:50:00 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-10.0 required=10.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received: from [209.237.227.194] (HELO [127.0.0.1]) (209.237.227.194) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 13 Oct 2005 01:50:00 -0700 Message-ID: <434E2052.5060200@apache.org> Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 10:52:34 +0200 From: Carsten Ziegeler User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Windows/20050716) X-Accept-Language: de-DE, de, en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@cocoon.apache.org Subject: Re: Portal won't start in trunk References: <434D5078.5010902@dslextreme.com> <434D52DD.9080703@reverycodes.com> <434D5497.2040403@apache.org> <434D5F98.3090101@reverycodes.com> <434D6878.2000403@apache.org> <434E1C67.5040706@apache.org> In-Reply-To: <434E1C67.5040706@apache.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.92.1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Sylvain Wallez wrote: > > Fixed. The problem was caused by the GroupBasedProfileManager which was > not preloaded and thus wasn't listening for events. This led the portal > temporary attribute (don't know what that is) named > "org.apache.cocoon.portal.profile.impl.AbstractProfileManager/User" not > being initialized, thus the NPE. > > The lazy loading brings some interesting performance improvements by > avoiding not only the initialization of components, but also even the > loading of classes. Problem is that it requires configuration writers to > know what components have to be loaded at startup time. > > So maybe we should be a bit less lazy, and load the classes to check for > a lifecycle interface (Startable?) to avoid having to specify > preload="true" in the configuration. I'll check this and see the speed > difference. > +1 Carsten -- Carsten Ziegeler - Open Source Group, S&N AG http://www.s-und-n.de http://www.osoco.org/weblogs/rael/