harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Aleksey Shipilev" <aleksey.shipi...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [classlib]remove the duplicate locale data
Date Wed, 30 Jan 2008 07:39:42 GMT
Tony,

Since this patch is known to greatly reduce stability, can we revert
it for a while?

Thanks,
Aleksey.

On Jan 28, 2008 7:34 PM, Ilya Berezhniuk <ilya.berezhniuk@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Tony,
>
> I've found yet another issue in EUT caused by r612718.
> ("Invalid name specified: {0}" is returned instead of "Invalid name
> specified: null")
>
> Issue is filed as HARMONY-5436.
>
> Thanks,
> Ilya.
>
> 2008/1/28, Tony Wu <wuyuehao@gmail.com>:
>
> >
> > Ok, investigating.
> >
> > On 1/28/08, Rustem Rafikov <r.v.rafikov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hi Tony,
> > >
> > > Please look at another issue connected with the ICU commit.
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-5435
> > > It has not been investigated deeply yet.
> > >
> > > --Rustem
> > >
> > >
> > > On Jan 28, 2008 6:49 AM, Tony Wu <wuyuehao@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Tony Wu
> > China Software Development Lab, IBM
> >
>

Mime
View raw message