harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Tony Wu" <wuyue...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [classlib]remove the duplicate locale data
Date Mon, 28 Jan 2008 03:49:53 GMT
They are all caused by different implementation of DateFormat, which
I've recorded on wiki. I think they are acceptable unless it breaks
some real product.  See following output, they have the same meaning
but don't exactly equal on text.

Result:   'text here 12:17:01 PM GMT+00:00 and here'
Expected: 'text here 12:17:01 UTC PM and here'

Result:   'text here 3:16:03 PM GMT+00:00 and here'
Expected: 'text here 3:16:03 o'clock PM UTC and here'

Result:   'text here 00-04-05 and here'
Expected: 'text here 05/04/00 and here'

I'll open another thread to ask people's opinions on this difference.

On 1/25/08, Andrey Pavlenko <andrey.a.pavlenko@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Tony,
>
> It looks like this commit caused a regression. Could you take a look at
> HARMONY-5430, please?
>
> On Jan 21, 2008 10:17 AM, Tony Wu <wuyuehao@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Thanks, Aleksey and all
> >
> > patch committed at r612718. Then I'm going to deal with the non-bug
> > difference. Hopefully many legcy bugs/differences can be fixed this
> > time.
> >
> > On 1/17/08, Aleksey Shipilev <aleksey.shipilev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hi, guys!
> > >
> > > Sure, correctness is important, but performance is important too. I
> > > had profiled both versions (clean and patched) and see no significant
> > > difference there: there are more GC happens what I believe connected
> > > to internal ICU object creation and such. So, there are no obvious way
> > > to maintain the same performance level, and may be we will try again
> > > to eliminate ICU usage from the hotpath of frequently used workloads -
> > > but previous investigation shows it's not that simple.
> > >
> > > Tony, please go ahead with committing this patch, we will deal with
> > > ICU performance issues a little later.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Aleksey.
> > >
> > > On Jan 15, 2008 1:52 PM, Tony Wu <wuyuehao@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Hi Aleksey,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for you help.
> > > >
> > > > I've proved there is no performance degradation on my machine
> > > > mentioned in my previous mail. I suppose the different result on your
> > > > machine is caused by different options to SpecJBB. Anyway, my POV is
> > > > that we should be willing to pay for the adoption of ICU if we have
> > > > to. All of us should be positive on this point. I'd like to clarify
> > > > the factors I'm facing below.
> > > >
> > > > Firstly, the original implementation of harmony is faster but
> > > > incorrect. It is not reasonable to keep the code as is and refuse to
> > > > correct it just because the bad version has better performance. IMHO
> > > > performance is nothing if there is no correctness.
> > > >
> > > > Secondly, we adopt ICU through delegation which involves extra method
> > > > calls than we implement it by ourselves, it does harm to performance
> > > > and can not be worked around. But please do not forget we benefit from
> > > > ICU in bug fixing, maintenance, smaller code size and so on.
> > > >
> > > > Lastly, branching does not make sense to me. My fix is very separate
> > > > in luni and text, I can not guarantee that there is no modification
> > > > during my work, so the synchronization between HEAD and my branch is
> > > > required. Actually only I myself am working on the development work
> > > > (Surely, Aleksey is very helpful on testing), this synchronization
> > > > might be a nightmare to me. Furthermore, the code on branch will not
> > > > be automatically tested by continuous integration system and BTI, I do
> > > > not want to work without collaboration, that's not an open source
> > > > style, right? Will you ask a contributor to create a branch and play
> > > > with himself whenever he wants to contribute?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 1/15/08, Mark Hindess <mark.hindess@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On 14 January 2008 at 16:21, Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> > > > > > > Yep, Tim, you're right. I believe that new implementation
fixes
> > a
> > > > > > > number of bugs and will try to get it not degrading. I
just want
> > to
> > > > > > > maintain the performance level of current trunk on the
same
> > level,
> > > > > > > gradually fixing functional bugs. I don't like to sacrifice
> > > > > > > performance of HEAD revision for non-critical bugfix. That
is, I
> > want
> > > > > > > to see HEAD changes like this:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "high performance, minor bug -> high performance, no
bugs"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > rather than
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "high performance, minor bug -> low performance, no
bugs -> high
> > > > > > > performance, no bugs"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ...because anyone could get the HEAD Harmony revision for
> > > > > > > performance measurements at any time.
> > > > >
> > > > > Couldn't someone also get the HEAD Harmony revision and suffer from
> > the
> > > > > known/fixable-with-Tony's-patch bugs at any time?
> > > > >
> > > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > >
> > > > > > For sure, improving performance and fixing the bugs is the most
> > > > > > desirable state.  I actually don't mind some minor performance
> > > > > > regression on HEAD between releases provided it is an area being
> > > > > > actively worked upon.
> > > > >
> > > > > +1 especially if it fixes bugs
> > > > >
> > > > > > I'd also like to get to 4.2Mb source code reduction too ;-)
> > > > >
> > > > > Me too.
> > > > >
> > > > > > If you and Tony are happy to work on the patch to get it perfect
> > then
> > > > > > go ahead.  I hope it is not too troublesome to keep it in synch.
> >  You
> > > > > > could also consider a branch in SVN.
> > > > >
> > > > > This bothers me too.  Firstly, while it is being developed in patch
> > > > > on JIRA, it is likely only Tony and Aleksey will really look at it.
> > > > > Secondly, that progress will be slow because of the cost of keeping
> > in
> > > > > sync - this applies to an SVN branch too.
> > > > >
> > > > > I can't help thinking we'll make more progress if we apply the patch
> > to
> > > > > HEAD now.  We'll get wider visibility of problems with the new code
> > -
> > > > > and there are likely issues beyond the performance problems that
> > have
> > > > > been the focus so far - and more people will see the benefit of Tony
> > > > > (and Aleksey's) hard work in getting us to this point.
> > > > >
> > > > > I certainly don't want all this work to be completed outside svn
> > HEAD
> > > > > and committed a week or two before the freeze for next milestone.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >  Mark.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Tony Wu
> > > > China Software Development Lab, IBM
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Tony Wu
> > China Software Development Lab, IBM
> >
>


-- 
Tony Wu
China Software Development Lab, IBM

Mime
View raw message