Absolutely right -- writing meaningful performance tests is hard. Implementing your own Logger would not solve the problem though<g>.
Best to avoid the 'This test worked OK' log messages altogether, and stick to assertions. Regards, Tim Mikhail Loenko wrote: > It might be a problem... > > When we use java.util.logging we do not just compare performance of security > API functions, the result is also depends on difference in performance of > java.util.logging in standard classes vs. Harmony classes. So if we use > non-trivial functionality from there then our results will be spoiled a > little. > > Will investigate more... > > Thanks, > Mikhail. > > On 1/17/06, Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> neither is the Logger class -- so my point is if you are going to write >> some logging code why not do it in java.util.logging? You may choose to >> only do simple stubs for now until somebody steps up to do a real impl. >> >> Regards, >> Tim >> >> Mikhail Loenko wrote: >>> It's not yet implemented. >>> >>> thanks, >>> Mikhail >>> >>> On 1/17/06, Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> Why not use java.util.logging? >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Tim >>>> >>>> Mikhail Loenko (JIRA) wrote: >>>>> [ >>>>> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-31?page=comments#action_12362910 >>>>> ] >>>>> >>>>> Mikhail Loenko commented on HARMONY-31: >>>>> --------------------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> This is not what I meant. >>>>> >>>>> I was going to create a Logger class at this point like this: >>>>> >>>>> public class Logger { >>>>> public static boolean printAllowed = false; >>>>> public static void log(String message) { >>>>> if (printAllowed) System.out.print(message); >>>>> } >>>>> public static void logln(String message) { >>>>> if (printAllowed) System.out.println(message); >>>>> } >>>>> public static void logError(String message) { >>>>> if (printAllowed) System.err.print(message); >>>>> } >>>>> public static void loglnError(String message) { >>>>> if (printAllowed) System.err.println(message); >>>>> } >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> And replace log() with Logger.log() everywhere in the tests. >>>>> >>>>> All the remaining functionality in the PerformanceTest is obsolete. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Move peformance timing of unit tests into a decorator class. >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> >>>>>> Key: HARMONY-31 >>>>>> URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-31 >>>>>> Project: Harmony >>>>>> Type: Improvement >>>>>> Reporter: George Harley >>>>>> Assignee: Geir Magnusson Jr >>>>>> Priority: Minor >>>>>> Attachments: PerfDecorator.java >>>>>> >>>>>> There has been some low-level discussion on the dev mailing list >>>>>> recently about the inclusion of performance-related logging code near >>>>>> the top of a unit test class inheritance hierarchy (see >>>>>> com.openintel.drl.security.test.PerformanceTest in the HARMONY-16 >>>>>> contribution). This particular issue suggests an alternative way of >>>>>> adding in timing code but without making it the responsibility of the >>>>>> unit tests themselves and without the need to introduce a class in the >>>>>> inheritance hierarchy. >>>>>> The basic approach is to exploit the junit.extensions.TestDecorator type >>>>>> in the JUnit API to add in timing behaviour before and after each test >>>>>> method runs. This will be demonstrated with some simple sample code. >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Tim Ellison ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >>>> IBM Java technology centre, UK. >>>> >> -- >> >> Tim Ellison ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >> IBM Java technology centre, UK. >> > -- Tim Ellison ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) IBM Java technology centre, UK.
