I have seen other caching problems when using the embedder, like
plugin versions not updated if the pom changes. I would go for
correctness first and speed second
On 7/12/07, John Casey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So, if we don't ever cache the plugin container, it's a 2-second
penalty on a single project using debug output with corrected algorithm?
-john
On Jul 12, 2007, at 11:29 AM, Piotr Tabor wrote:
> John Casey pisze:
>> While #3 might have the best performance in terms of speed, I really
>> wonder about memory performance. Leaving all those old antrun plugin
>> instances laying around but still reachable means that in very large
>> projects that use antrun, we'll have some pretty significant memory
>> problems. If you determine that the plugin+dependencies doesn't fit
>> the current requirement, then what's the point in keeping it around?
> We can use LRU cache if we afraid of memory.
>
> The running times are:
> 12 secunds with -X option for the "integration-test" with
> current "error"
> 15 secunds with -X option for the removing not matching
> (pluginDescriptor) and putting new one into the cache
> 17 secunds with -X option without cashing commented
>
> Thanks,
> Piotr
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
---
John Casey
Committer and PMC Member, Apache Maven
mail: jdcasey at commonjava dot org
blog: http://www.ejlife.net/blogs/john
--
I could give you my word as a Spaniard.
No good. I've known too many Spaniards.
-- The Princess Bride
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
