On Fri, 14 Dec 2001 00:53, Berin Loritsch wrote:
> > hierarchy of methods on different components. ie Components C1, C2, C3,
> > C4 and Methods M1, M2, M3 and M4 such that
> >
> > C1.M1 calls C2.M2 and C3.M3. C2.M2 calls C4.M4
> >
> > When profiling you want to know how much time in total was spent in M2
> > and you also want to know how much time was spent in M4 (and thus how
> > much was spent solely in M2 without calling M4). Now instead of dealing
> > with methods this could be arbitrary resource usages.
>
> I think I know where you are going. And I think we are talking about two
> different types of profiling. For instance, the type of profiling that
> this type of framework is best for would be tracking Pool MetaInformation,
> or if DataSource Connection request/release was asymetrical (i.e. requested
> but never closed...).
>
> You are thinking more along the lines of a traditional profiler that
> handles coverage reports and length of time for each method. That would
> never fit this model of profiling, and I think it would be wrong to force
> it to happen.
>
> There are different types of profiling needs, and this addresses specific
> profiling needs for Avalon. There are other profiling tools that address
> the type of needs you are describing here.
Hmmm ... well I wasn't actually thinking about it in that way but I guess the
example came across that way. Hmmm. I still think hierarchial points would be
useful though
--
Cheers,
Pete
---------------------------------------------------
"Wise men don't need advice. Fools don't take it."
-Benjamin Franklin
---------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
