Currently far from a computer (holidays) so if you cant wait go for it otherwise it is on my todo list for the beginning of next month
Le jeudi 19 juin 2014, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> a écrit : > On 3 June 2014 23:29, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hmm, any advice to revert it without loosing next changes and passing too >> long to reapply them (some are important)? > > Please can you revert the change now? > This has been outstanding far too long. > > If you want me to do it, just let me know. > >> Actually it was not combining different things, both were related to >> scalability and performances. > > Those are both general concepts and can be applied to lots of different changes. > >> >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> Twitter: @rmannibucau >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> >> >> 2014-06-04 0:23 GMT+02:00 sebb <seb...@gmail.com>: >> >>> Apart from the unresolved issue of logging, I still think the commit >>> should be reverted because it combines two completely different >>> changes. >>> >>> Please can you revert the commit ASAP? >>> >>> On 2 June 2014 18:09, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > On 2 June 2014 16:11, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> First about immutabilit thread safety etc: we can use final if it ends >>> the >>> >> topic, it was not cause first version was a field and not a constant and >>> >> serializable but now it can be final. >>> >> >>> >> Then about isDebugEnabled: overhead is quite important compared to a >>> simple >>> >> boolean test. Most of the time it is not important but for a caching >>> >> solution (in particular in memory mode) it is impacting since it is done >>> >> very often. >>> >> >>> >> To be convinced of it just debug log4j (1.2) impl for instance. Really >>> >> depends the config too but basically you'll end up checking repository >>> >> level + potentially browse all logger categories. If config is well >>> done no >>> >> by overhead by if not that's really too much. If you take JUL that's >>> worse. >>> >> isDebugEnabled is fast but then log invocation has more check (record, >>> >> filter, handlers at least). Actually I think we can do further >>> proposing a >>> >> JCS property "verbose" and get rid of logger level for these cases. We >>> can >>> >> add a shared MBean to on/off it then. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> wdyt? >>> > >>> > I think we need more proof that some kind of caching really is needed. >>> > >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Romain Manni-Bucau >>> >> Twitter: @rmannibucau >>> >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >>> >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >>> >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> 2014-06-02 16:27 GMT+02:00 Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com>: >>> >> >>> >>> On 6/1/14, 6:01 PM, Bernd Eckenfels wrote: >>> >>> > Am Sun, 1 Jun 2014 23:43:10 +0100 >>> >>> > schrieb sebb <seb...@gmail.com>: >>> >>> > >>> >>> >> On 1 June 2014 20:19, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> >>> >>> >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> well it is for sure thread safe. Not sure I get why final and synch >>> >>> >>> would be mandatory in this particular case (field will maybe be >>> >>> >>> cached by thread but that's not an issue since the value will be >>> >>> >>> unique). >>> >>> >> non-final fields are not guaranteed to be published across threads >>> in >>> >>> >> the absence of sync. >>> >>> > The two fields wont change, so there is no need for publishing >>> changes. >>> >>> > So they dont need to be volatile. They could be made however final to >>> >>> > make it clearer that they will not change (but IMHO this does not >>> make >>> >>> > them more or less thread safe). >>> >>> >>> >>> Right, except that the logger is itself mutable and it looks like >>> >>> clients hold onto references to it. What I don't get is why it is >>> >>> so much faster to add the overhead of the helper just to avoid a >>> >>> call to logger.isDebugEnabled(). I would expect that to return just >>> >>> as fast as the LOG_HELPER inspecting its (even cached) boolean. >>> >>> What am I missing? >>> >>> >>> >>> Phil >>> >>> > >>> >>> > I feel indifferent about beeing able to turn off trace/debug by >>> >>> > overwriting the underlying logger. If we are really so logger >>> >>> > agnostic it is probably a good idea. At least when commons-logging is >>> >>> > not able to abstract this shortcoming away. >>> >>> > >>> >>> > Gruss >>> >>> > Bernd >>> >>> > >>> >>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >>> >>> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >>> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >>> >>> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > -- Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
