yes +1! Tommaso 2012/2/15 Maurizio Cucchiara <[email protected]>
> Hi Simo, > Absolutely +1 > > Twitter :http://www.twitter.com/m_cucchiara > G+ :https://plus.google.com/107903711540963855921 > Linkedin :http://www.linkedin.com/in/mauriziocucchiara > > Maurizio Cucchiara > > > On 15 February 2012 09:14, Simone Tripodi <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hi again guys, > > > > while modularization would imply code split, do you agree on moving > > benchmarks in a separated module as well? > > > > TIA, > > -Simo > > > > http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ > > http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/ > > http://twitter.com/simonetripodi > > http://www.99soft.org/ > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Simone Tripodi > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hello! > > > > > > I don't have a strong idea ATM how to replace the Josql, if you > > > already have some hints I would be glad to do the legwork :) > > > > > > We're on the same boat, I thought on keeping the default Java > > > serializer as well in the core module - as a second step, we could > > > even think in a ServiceProvider based factory (find between services, > > > use the default if no one has been found) > > > > > > +1 to Olivier's idea - I see the REST layer as an external module on > > > top of the core... did you think about the same or had a different > > > vision? > > > > > > Have a nice day, all the best! > > > -Simo > > > > > > http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ > > > http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/ > > > http://twitter.com/simonetripodi > > > http://www.99soft.org/ > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 8:23 AM, Raffaele P. Guidi > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> regarding the formatting thing - I honestly don't remember why I did > the > > >> choice, di as you think best. Josql is used at the core level to > select > > >> items to purge in the background, I already pointed out it can also > be a > > >> performance bottleneck but it was easy to correct with ad-hoc code. > > >> Regarding serializers - yes it should be done but I suggest to keep > the > > >> default one in the core. The java serializer is a bit too slow to be > the > > >> default one, IMHO. All other ideas and news are great, including the > > >> memcached protocol, which I already investigated long ago (there's a > > java > > >> me cached server with pluggable implementations somewhere in google > code > > >> that is a good starting point) and the fact that you'll be able to > > leverage > > >> DM in some ways. > > >> > > >> Ciao, > > >> R > > >> Il giorno 14/feb/2012 22:29, "Simone Tripodi" < > [email protected]> > > ha > > >> scritto: > > >> > > >>> Hi all guys, > > >>> > > >>> I've finally got the chance - because I also have the need - to do > > >>> some serious work on DM - now setting up the environment, > experiencing > > >>> the following issues and also got following considerations (some of > > >>> them already afforded but discussions where to nowhere): > > >>> > > >>> disclaimer: I am not an OSGi guru, but I've been a modularization > > >>> advocate time before OSGi got popularity, so I would like to apply > the > > >>> same approach as well: > > >>> > > >>> * serializers: all serializers are included by default, I am > > >>> convinced that protostuff serializer can could be extracted as a > > >>> separated module and maybe among other 3rd parties serializers, such > > >>> as Kryo <http://code.google.com/p/kryo/>, ASF Thrift > > >>> <http://thrift.apache.org/> and Avro <http://avro.apache.org/>, and > > >>> the newer Message Pack <http://msgpack.org/> - users could plug > their > > >>> preferred serializer depending on their taste/needs/... > > >>> > > >>> * net.sf.josql:gentlyweb-utils:1.5 artifact not found - I did a > > >>> little research and found it on <http://josql.sourceforge.net/> - > > >>> while the feature of having an embedded query language is really > cool, > > >>> IMHO it could be part of an auxiliary module. I mean, basic query > > >>> system must be supported by combining objects (and fluent APIs could > > >>> help) but I'm not fully convinced on having it as foundation of our > > >>> core module... > > >>> > > >>> A side question for Raf: I am not aware about performances, but why > > >>> did you prefer j.u.Formatter.format( messagePattern, Object... args > > >>> ).toString() over String.format( messagePattern, Object... args ) ? > > >>> I extensively used the j.u.Formatter in Commons-Digester3 but for > > >>> chaining more than one format in the same message, but I didn't > notice > > >>> the benefit of using it for single shot... TIA! > > >>> > > >>> As you can see, my proposal is having a minimal DM core, with less > > >>> dependencies as possible, that can be easily enriched with aux > > >>> modules... > > >>> > > >>> please provide your feedbacks, I have some time/energy to put on DM > > >>> and glad to do it! > > >>> TIA, > > >>> -Simo > > >>> > > >>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ > > >>> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/ > > >>> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi > > >>> http://www.99soft.org/ > > >>> > > >
