Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-logging-log4j-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-logging-log4j-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8B2C6C619 for ; Tue, 4 Jun 2013 04:49:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 83646 invoked by uid 500); 4 Jun 2013 04:49:37 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-logging-log4j-dev-archive@logging.apache.org Received: (qmail 83455 invoked by uid 500); 4 Jun 2013 04:49:37 -0000 Mailing-List: contact log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Log4J Developers List" Reply-To: "Log4J Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list log4j-dev@logging.apache.org Received: (qmail 83220 invoked by uid 99); 4 Jun 2013 04:49:34 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 04 Jun 2013 04:49:34 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.0 required=5.0 tests=FORGED_YAHOO_RCVD,RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [106.10.151.180] (HELO nm30-vm5.bullet.mail.sg3.yahoo.com) (106.10.151.180) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 04 Jun 2013 04:49:26 +0000 Received: from [106.10.166.121] by nm30.bullet.mail.sg3.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 04 Jun 2013 04:49:03 -0000 Received: from [106.10.167.180] by tm10.bullet.mail.sg3.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 04 Jun 2013 04:49:03 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by smtp153.mail.sg3.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 04 Jun 2013 04:49:03 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1370321343; bh=CkIiW7wnw4q5HcT83FPCnCNTHz0CPIue7GLywxbekBg=; h=X-Yahoo-Newman-Id:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:X-Rocket-Received:Subject:References:From:Content-Type:X-Mailer:In-Reply-To:Message-Id:Date:To:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Mime-Version; b=qn8wGDBRuwuIOl61zYooIFbScXU1uvFpojMXtvc+EKk3icLdNpmB32IHp7VDwLkOOZKNdEPydA2/nHFVmM/T5YIhpDzLhJd4aVDIOnQQp9ORvFhyTiZApzH450Kz1I4UWlPVxkJkt/8vtM3sOBO0eE11mGrEDWj2P3M9Oi/tGq0= X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 381269.46075.bm@smtp153.mail.sg3.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: 1zODBmEVM1keughgtLJ6zvsdU6VuVQs48spBsCJ_LQ74mOU 3L1mkM2r4JnqvhqHRy0Iq2eqIW0iyFdFjqwoWHmlTqjx.VC6puCSBo1nBi3X UCpQIauBuv6EFn2hOPeaYZ0sYnNCoDAmG_m8TiHqHPHvl1tebUD2ksZIWOKq Wa3MvS2gpRnHSAvRqapYRYYXx8AK9kHNON2oRuL2aES7oBvst5bwMcDt9Z_F 2VIZvxejBgSC80DAI0Nds25KNjb0HHmcEGJjXodBm4VT73Ws.qT5oA8Ne18H ITyPMMt.fM_ADulUtIFtI9JJUY4H_YDfTN7uaIeC10ggRPdHZ0UMc4cAcQyV ake5qVyUiPxjBrv_KtQf4aoU_zM_HLDfqjVo1.FdhzWLwIncgC14QUGZUyVp HKwFVtjE18eKHMm6pnsuMkzuIYtVdWvI5oIt8Stk5CFGTqgNm0wPicX7dUwU EBiMJ7lh2vl8wvjWwg_LPrPd7phQ- X-Yahoo-SMTP: pK7GVQyswBADiRm6AI0E2T7nfA-- X-Rocket-Received: from [10.33.82.138] (remkop@126.205.69.74 with ) by smtp153.mail.sg3.yahoo.com with SMTP; 03 Jun 2013 21:49:03 -0700 PDT Subject: Re: [VOTE] Log4j 2.0-beta7 rc2 References: <19F9308E-4405-43A2-A698-228777C8A3D5@nicholaswilliams.net> <8691E817-F4DF-40D1-920E-36F2F9F4A831@dslextreme.com> From: Remko Popma Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (10B350) In-Reply-To: <8691E817-F4DF-40D1-920E-36F2F9F4A831@dslextreme.com> Message-Id: <6130CE1F-25E1-4289-BD6D-F5E3376D02F1@yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 13:48:59 +0900 To: Log4J Developers List Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org I see.=20 I was surprised that it only tests the throughput of checking whether a log l= evel is enabled; I guess I expected something else. Sorry for the knee jerk r= eaction.=20 I still have ideas to improve some of the implementation mechanics, I'll fol= low up on them separately.=20 Sent from my iPhone On 2013/06/04, at 12:49, Ralph Goers 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 f= ail. It is there to detect that kind of serious problem. >=20 > Ralph >=20 > On Jun 3, 2013, at 7:11 PM, Remko Popma wrote: >=20 >> I agree with Gary that this test needs some work (or should not be part o= f the build: a proper performance test needs 5-10 seconds warmup, so these k= ind of tests end up taking too long to be run together with the functional J= Unit tests). >>=20 >> I don't think this test does what it is trying to do. (It won't detect ne= w performance issues.) >>=20 >> So I agree with Nick we don't need to treat this as a showstopper.=20 >>=20 >> Remko >>=20 >> PS >> FWIW, I cannot reproduce the issue on my PC at work.=20 >>=20 >> PS2=20 >> Cut off lower half of this mail to prevent Apache mailer daemon from boun= cing my message.=20 >>=20 >> 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