Mailing-List: contact dev-help@ant.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Ant Developers List" <dev@ant.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
  h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;
  b=0v/DwKB+/iVMVAnwGZTAOaAZy33uuJ4mvGN97VrkCrkTEn8Fg5A0vsuZakyaVQqxCPoQnQjpIfuO78K8pr9qdMBdkzgW+jMgX/IW2hmVY4RUPpb0Ly/xxzeHlOSop+9jsSYnm6QndK70dYiuz8PMM3ebkYLsQnEMPVn1xke0RSw=
  ;
Message-ID: <20060420040046.95702.qmail@web30902.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 21:00:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Matt Benson <gudnabrsam@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: AW: Adding a methof to StringUtils
To: Ant Developers List <dev@ant.apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <4446EC20.5020405@it.fts-vn.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit


--- Kev Jackson <kevin.jackson@it.fts-vn.com> wrote:

> Dominique Devienne wrote:
> 
> >>The point about building the strings when they
> aren't used (because
> >>logging verbosity is set too low) still stands
> though - this is less
> >>than efficient
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >The point, which Matt already raised, is that you
> can't know the level
> >at which the logger and the listeners are set.
> There is nothing ATM in
> >the Ant codebase to tip off the project as to the
> min log level of all
> >logger+listener to implement your optimization.
> This could be can be
> >added though, and would be useful IMHO, but that's
> a separate thread.
> >
> >  
> >
> I know, that was why I didn't want to wrap the log
> code in if(verbosity 
>  >= Project.MSG_INFO) conditionals - it's sort of a
> catch-22 situation, 
> you don't want to log the message (or even bother
> building it) if it 
> won't be used, but that can't be determined, so you
> must build the 
> message just in case - I agree a mechanism for you
> to retrieve the 
> minimum logging level of the entire project would be
> useful in this 
> situation
> 
> >The StringBuffer optimization is well known. I've
> either read about it
> >in Effective Java or the "K&R" of Java,
> The.Java.Prog.Lang.
> >  
> >
> I think it was in Effective Java, but as Alexey
> showed previously, 
> Java1.4+ actually perform this operation for you,
> letting you be as lazy 
> as you like with String concatenation (now that's
> progress!).  I have to 
> stop beating up the junior devs here whenever I see
> sqlString = "Select 
> " + field + " from " + table + " where " + field + "
> = value"; as we are 
> on 1.4 internally so it doesn't degrade performance
> anymore.  Still I'd 
> prefer to be able to do something like "yada yada
> ${var1} yada yada 
> ${var2}" like the property expansion that is already
> in Ant - I 
> personally think it's much cleaner than "yada yada "
> + var1 + "yada 
> yada" + var2., even the Java5 printf isn't as nice
> as it could be for 
> constructing messages (although it's a long way
> forward).
> 
> >I think what you propose to do would clutter the
> code, and make it
> >ugly frankly ;-) I'd probably -1 it unless you can
> show hard evidence
> >of it's usefulness.
> >  
> >
> 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.

Kev: I've asked some stuff about FileUtils before...
historically it was thought it might be pluggable,
hence all the instance methods.  But that never
happened so the static methods crept in.  I think it
was Martijn who really pushed in the FileUtils
singleton.  Most places in Ant's code don't
instantiate their own FileUtils anymore, and if they
do they shouldn't; they should use the singleton.

-Matt
> 
> Thanks everyone for feedback
> Kev
> 
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> dev-help@ant.apache.org
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org