pageContext.include() appears much slower on weblogic 7.0 - Weblogic

This is a discussion on pageContext.include() appears much slower on weblogic 7.0 - Weblogic ; Hi, I'm deploying a web application on Weblogic server 7.0 sp3 running on windows 2000. The app was originally run on Tomcat 4.0.3 also on windows 2000. When we ported over to Weblogic we noticed the performance had dramatically declined. ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: pageContext.include() appears much slower on weblogic 7.0

  1. pageContext.include() appears much slower on weblogic 7.0

    Hi,
    I'm deploying a web application on Weblogic server 7.0 sp3 running
    on windows 2000. The app was originally run on Tomcat 4.0.3 also on
    windows 2000. When we ported over to Weblogic we noticed the
    performance had dramatically declined. Interestingly enough 90% of
    our site seemed to match the results we received on tomcat. There is,
    however, one page where the results differed. This page is a jsp that
    calls pageContext.include from within a custom tag. This tag is
    called a total of nine times.

    We set up jprobe to monitor the time discrepancy. We found the
    following result. The main point of difference when profiling both
    tomcat and weblogic was a call to pageContext.include from within our
    custom tag. The cumulative time was twice as high when running
    through weblogic. In this case, Tomcat took 4 cumulative seconds to
    complete this call, while Weblogic took 8 seconds.

    Has anyone else encountered a problem similar to this? My hunch is
    that the weblogic implementation of the jsp spec must somehow differ
    from Tomcat's, leading to the large variation in time to complete.

    Any suggestions or pearls of wisdom are quite welcome.

    IS

  2. Re: pageContext.include() appears much slower on weblogic 7.0

    isolop wrote:
    > Hi,
    > I'm deploying a web application on Weblogic server 7.0 sp3 running
    > on windows 2000. The app was originally run on Tomcat 4.0.3 also on
    > windows 2000. When we ported over to Weblogic we noticed the
    > performance had dramatically declined. Interestingly enough 90% of
    > our site seemed to match the results we received on tomcat. There is,
    > however, one page where the results differed. This page is a jsp that
    > calls pageContext.include from within a custom tag. This tag is
    > called a total of nine times.
    >
    > We set up jprobe to monitor the time discrepancy. We found the
    > following result. The main point of difference when profiling both
    > tomcat and weblogic was a call to pageContext.include from within our
    > custom tag. The cumulative time was twice as high when running
    > through weblogic. In this case, Tomcat took 4 cumulative seconds to
    > complete this call, while Weblogic took 8 seconds.
    >
    > Has anyone else encountered a problem similar to this? My hunch is
    > that the weblogic implementation of the jsp spec must somehow differ
    > from Tomcat's, leading to the large variation in time to complete.
    >
    > Any suggestions or pearls of wisdom are quite welcome.
    >
    > IS


    Interesting .. Can you post more information on the nature of the
    include and the type of tag? i.e Is this a bodyTag Are you buffereing
    any response via ResponseWrappers ?

    --
    Nagesh


  3. Re: pageContext.include() appears much slower on weblogic 7.0

    The tag is something we wrote ourselves. It implements a tab book
    (like a Windows property sheet). It looks at the "model" for the page
    and selects an appropriate list of tabs to display in the tab book.
    i.e. we have a look-up that can map the class of an object into a list
    of tabs (page fragment to go inside the tab book). The selected tabs
    are included into the resulting page using PageContext.include().

    The tab book tag derives from BodyTagSupport. We implement
    doStartTag() and doEndTag() with doAfterBody() returning SKIP_BODY
    (surprisingly). Our tab book tag object can be customized by inserting
    additional custom tags as its body content (in a manner similar to an
    Html