Peter Donald wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2001 00:53, Berin Loritsch wrote:
hierarchy of methods on different components. ie Components C1, C2, C3,
C4 and Methods M1, M2, M3 and M4 such that
C1.M1 calls C2.M2 and C3.M3. C2.M2 calls C4.M4
When profiling you want to know how much time in total was spent in M2
and you also want to know how much time was spent in M4 (and thus how
much was spent solely in M2 without calling M4). Now instead of dealing
with methods this could be arbitrary resource usages.
I think I know where you are going. And I think we are talking about two
different types of profiling. For instance, the type of profiling that
this type of framework is best for would be tracking Pool MetaInformation,
or if DataSource Connection request/release was asymetrical (i.e. requested
but never closed...).
You are thinking more along the lines of a traditional profiler that
handles coverage reports and length of time for each method. That would
never fit this model of profiling, and I think it would be wrong to force
it to happen.
There are different types of profiling needs, and this addresses specific
profiling needs for Avalon. There are other profiling tools that address
the type of needs you are describing here.
Hmmm ... well I wasn't actually thinking about it in that way but I guess the
example came across that way. Hmmm. I still think hierarchial points would be
useful though
Check my response in the other email.
*your email may be slow....*
--
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
