On Wed, Apr 04, 2012 at 12:58:55PM -0300, Marco Schulze wrote: > On 04-04-2012 11:43, Zlatin Balevsky wrote: >> >> The problem of abusing the predicate by performing anything other than >> logging inside it. >> > I guess that that does improve readability a bit. However, less than 5% > of the ifs guards anything but Log.*() calls. > >> You cannot get rid of the predicate without introducing side effects >> as I've demonstrated throughout this thread. >> > By removing the predicate and delegating checks to the logging function, > a _lot_ of boilerplate code is removed. Ideally, as toad said, Java > would have some kind macro system enabling the best of both worlds. > Lacking that, the question becomes: 'is the overhead acceptable?'. > > There have been quite a lot of arguments thrown here. In the end, > though, as fred is big and complex, the only answer is to write some > code and actually run the thing. Are varargs bad? Sure. Is the slowdown > unacceptable? No idea. Just bear with my slowness (or do help), and > you'll at least have a convincing argument for the next fool in the line. >
You're the one who should try to convince us to merge your jumbo patch... If your proposed solution is not faster than the existing code, you'd better come up with a solid and representative benchmark showing that the difference is not significant. If your 'solution' is trading 'jar size' and 'readability' against run-time performance (for the common case assuming logNORMAL), we won't merge it. Freenet is slow enough as is. Hint: your doing it wrong, the one way to make it faster and nicer is to use dependancy injection Florent
