logging-log4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Remko Popma <rem...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Log4j 2.0-beta7 rc2
Date Tue, 04 Jun 2013 04:48:59 GMT
I see. 
I was surprised that it only tests the throughput of checking whether a log level is enabled;
I guess I expected something else. Sorry for the knee jerk reaction. 

I still have ideas to improve some of the implementation mechanics, I'll follow up on them
separately. 

Sent from my iPhone

On 2013/06/04, at 12:49, Ralph Goers <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com> wrote:

> The test really does do what it is supposed to.  If you add some code that causes a minor
amount of overhead when logging is disabled this test will fail.  It is there to detect that
kind of serious problem.
> 
> Ralph
> 
> On Jun 3, 2013, at 7:11 PM, Remko Popma wrote:
> 
>> I agree with Gary that this test needs some work (or should not be part of the build:
a proper performance test needs 5-10 seconds warmup, so these kind of tests end up taking
too long to be run together with the functional JUnit tests).
>> 
>> I don't think this test does what it is trying to do. (It won't detect new performance
issues.)
>> 
>> So I agree with Nick we don't need to treat this as a showstopper. 
>> 
>> Remko
>> 
>> PS
>> FWIW, I cannot reproduce the issue on my PC at work. 
>> 
>> PS2 
>> Cut off lower half of this mail to prevent Apache mailer daemon from bouncing my
message. 
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org


Mime
View raw message