Kev Jackson wrote:
If it came to it I'd -1 it too! I don't like any of the solutions I
could come up with yesterday, the one I showed was the 'least worst'
that I could think of, with a semi-upgrade path to Java5 style varargs
(use an object array). I was mainly throwing the idea out to see what
peoples reactions were - overall I don't think it's the right way to
solve the problem - the real problem is that the level of logging cannot
currently be determined and so any optimization (for memory or
performance) is actually changing the behaviour of the code - which it
shouldn't do.
The delete task was just an example - I was looking at it to fix 'delete
task won't be quiet' bug in bugzilla, and I was also thinking about the
problem with AppFuse, (which does use Delete a little, but not as much
as Copy and other tasks), so it seemed like a handy guinea pig as I had
the code open at the time.
I was also looking at Copy and saw that ResourceUtils.copyResource is a
static method, but FileUtils.copyFile is not even though it delegates to
copyResource, this means that in Copy there must be an instantiated
fileUtils object, just to perform the copy, unfortunately the FileUtils
interface/API is public so changing it would break bwc, but I'd like to
add a static method for copyFile so that Copy wont need to instantiate
FileUtils.
One thing I've always been curious about is how much speedup we'd get by
turning off all logging. That is, if I modified log() to discard its
contents, how much faster would everything be? We couldnt use the test
suite as a benchmark, because too many tests depend on the log, and it
probably isnt realistic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
