On 24 June 2014 10:17, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Sebb, > > saw you reverted few parts, > > can you give us a status and say me if I can help cleaning up what remains?
AFAIK it has all now been reverted apart from the locking changes that were documented in the original log message. I don't think there is anything left to do on this. > Thanks, > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > Twitter: @rmannibucau > Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > > > 2014-06-19 22:35 GMT+02:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>: > >> Currently far from a computer (holidays) so if you cant wait go for it >> otherwise it is on my todo list for the beginning of next month >> >> Le jeudi 19 juin 2014, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> a écrit : >> >> > On 3 June 2014 23:29, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hmm, any advice to revert it without loosing next changes and passing >> too >> >> long to reapply them (some are important)? >> > >> > Please can you revert the change now? >> > This has been outstanding far too long. >> > >> > If you want me to do it, just let me know. >> > >> >> Actually it was not combining different things, both were related to >> >> scalability and performances. >> > >> > Those are both general concepts and can be applied to lots of different >> changes. >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> >> Twitter: @rmannibucau >> >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> >> >> >> >> >> 2014-06-04 0:23 GMT+02:00 sebb <seb...@gmail.com>: >> >> >> >>> Apart from the unresolved issue of logging, I still think the commit >> >>> should be reverted because it combines two completely different >> >>> changes. >> >>> >> >>> Please can you revert the commit ASAP? >> >>> >> >>> On 2 June 2014 18:09, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> > On 2 June 2014 16:11, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >> First about immutabilit thread safety etc: we can use final if it >> ends >> >>> the >> >>> >> topic, it was not cause first version was a field and not a >> constant and >> >>> >> serializable but now it can be final. >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Then about isDebugEnabled: overhead is quite important compared to a >> >>> simple >> >>> >> boolean test. Most of the time it is not important but for a caching >> >>> >> solution (in particular in memory mode) it is impacting since it is >> done >> >>> >> very often. >> >>> >> >> >>> >> To be convinced of it just debug log4j (1.2) impl for instance. >> Really >> >>> >> depends the config too but basically you'll end up checking >> repository >> >>> >> level + potentially browse all logger categories. If config is well >> >>> done no >> >>> >> by overhead by if not that's really too much. If you take JUL that's >> >>> worse. >> >>> >> isDebugEnabled is fast but then log invocation has more check >> (record, >> >>> >> filter, handlers at least). Actually I think we can do further >> >>> proposing a >> >>> >> JCS property "verbose" and get rid of logger level for these cases. >> We >> >>> can >> >>> >> add a shared MBean to on/off it then. >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> wdyt? >> >>> > >> >>> > I think we need more proof that some kind of caching really is >> needed. >> >>> > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> >>> >> Twitter: @rmannibucau >> >>> >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> >>> >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> >>> >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> 2014-06-02 16:27 GMT+02:00 Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com>: >> >>> >> >> >>> >>> On 6/1/14, 6:01 PM, Bernd Eckenfels wrote: >> >>> >>> > Am Sun, 1 Jun 2014 23:43:10 +0100 >> >>> >>> > schrieb sebb <seb...@gmail.com>: >> >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> >> On 1 June 2014 20:19, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com >> > >> >>> >>> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> well it is for sure thread safe. Not sure I get why final and >> synch >> >>> >>> >>> would be mandatory in this particular case (field will maybe be >> >>> >>> >>> cached by thread but that's not an issue since the value will >> be >> >>> >>> >>> unique). >> >>> >>> >> non-final fields are not guaranteed to be published across >> threads >> >>> in >> >>> >>> >> the absence of sync. >> >>> >>> > The two fields wont change, so there is no need for publishing >> >>> changes. >> >>> >>> > So they dont need to be volatile. They could be made however >> final to >> >>> >>> > make it clearer that they will not change (but IMHO this does not >> >>> make >> >>> >>> > them more or less thread safe). >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> Right, except that the logger is itself mutable and it looks like >> >>> >>> clients hold onto references to it. What I don't get is why it is >> >>> >>> so much faster to add the overhead of the helper just to avoid a >> >>> >>> call to logger.isDebugEnabled(). I would expect that to return >> just >> >>> >>> as fast as the LOG_HELPER inspecting its (even cached) boolean. >> >>> >>> What am I missing? >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> Phil >> >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> > I feel indifferent about beeing able to turn off trace/debug by >> >>> >>> > overwriting the underlying logger. If we are really so logger >> >>> >>> > agnostic it is probably a good idea. At least when >> commons-logging is >> >>> >>> > not able to abstract this shortcoming away. >> >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> > Gruss >> >>> >>> > Bernd >> >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>> >>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> >>> >>> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> >>> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> >>> >> >>> >> > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> > >> > >> >> -- >> >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> Twitter: @rmannibucau >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
