cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Glen Mazza <>
Subject Re: Next possible performance target: constructors with arguments
Date Tue, 25 Mar 2008 22:01:14 GMT
I wouldn't necessarily consider it an anti-pattern.  Constructor
injection is good when you need to document/demonstrate that a class
must *not* be instantiated if it does not have those certain properties
available.  Of course, that can be rolled back to just using setter
injection in areas where performance is crucial.


Am Dienstag, den 25.03.2008, 16:45 -0400 schrieb Benson Margulies:
> I'm not entirely sure that I believe it, but it appears that the following
> bit of spring from cxf.xml is disproportionately expensive. Why? Because it
> uses a contructor with arguments. Why? Because spring has to think much
> harder to decide on a constructor than a set of set methods.
> So... I'm going to try adding set methods, a no-args constructor, and an
> init-method, and see what I see.
> If this works, I'll be on the hunt for other cases of the same (anti????)
> pattern.
>  <bean id="org.apache.cxf.resource.ResourceManager" class="
> org.apache.cxf.bus.resource.ResourceManagerImpl">
>        <constructor-arg>
>             <list>
>                 <bean class="org.apache.cxf.resource.ClasspathResolver"/>
>                 <bean class="org.apache.cxf.resource.ClassLoaderResolver"/>
>                 <bean class="
> org.apache.cxf.bus.spring.BusApplicationContextResourceResolver"/>
>             </list>
>        </constructor-arg>
>        <property name="bus" ref="cxf"/>
>     </bean>

View raw message