qpid-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Steve Huston <shus...@riverace.com>
Subject RE: REQEST FEEDBACK Re: How to test the performance quid c++ broker
Date Fri, 25 Jul 2014 17:31:45 GMT
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fraser Adams [mailto:fraser.adams@blueyonder.co.uk]
> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2014 1:22 PM
> To: users@qpid.apache.org
> Subject: Re: REQEST FEEDBACK Re: How to test the performance quid c++
> broker
> 
> On 25/07/14 17:27, Steve Huston wrote:
> >
> > I believe that the person likely to be downloading qpid source is a
> > developer. It is likely a developer that does not want to become
> > intimately familiar with debugging Qpid - they just want it to work
> > without asking questions. But it is a person who may need a sensible
> > stack trace, line numbers, etc. to at least post back here if
> > something goes amiss. They will, after all, need to be testing their
> > own software that uses Qpid and may have occasion to ask things here.
> >
> > When things are all debugged and ready to deploy, the user may want to
> > rebuild w/o debinfo, but if not, it will still perform very well in
> > the field.
> >
> > -Steve
> >
> >
> I don't agree with the assertion "the person likely to be downloading qpid
> source is a developer " - well perhaps a developer of some persuasion, but I
> certainly don't agree that they are necessarily a
> *qpid* developer.

I didn't say *qpid* developer  - but qpid doesn't do anything on its own - someone has to
write code to do something with qpid.

> The only way I'd feel happy defaulting to a build with debug symbols or
> otherwise unstripped is if the build informed the users that this was the case.
> I truly believe that the most common use case for an average user is to want
> to download, build and enjoy and they should have a reasonable expectation
> of a build that is shipable to a mission critical operational environment
> without having to work out some (likely
> undocumented) magic incantation.
> 
> It's not just about the performance, accidentally shipping operational code
> with debug symbols is bad practice IMHO.

As Andrew said, the debug info is generally a separate file. After you've spent some night
being called in on a problem and you have _nothing_ to go on but hex stack, you will fight
to the death to get debug info in all future projects. Trust me :-)  Back in the day, as they
say, all we had was hex stack and a link map. And compile code generation listings. On green
bar paper. I ain't goin back there.

-Steve

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org


Mime
View raw message