Jacques,
Thanks. I will do it soon.
On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 16:30:30 +0530, Jacques Le Roux
wrote:
Hi Adrian,
Thanks for asking, I committed and commented at revision: 1465223
Atul,
It was not easy to read your patch in the email (cut at 80 chars).
Please open a Jira if you want to impro
Hi Adrian,
Thanks for asking, I committed and commented at revision: 1465223
Atul,
It was not easy to read your patch in the email (cut at 80 chars). Please open
a Jira if you want to improve my commit.
Thanks
Jacques
From: "Adrian Crum"
> Jacques,
>
> What are your requirements? What ar
Jacques,
What are your requirements? What are you looking for in the logs?
-Adrian
On 4/4/2013 10:54 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
These numbers are from experience of hours and hours staring at clusters logs,
but yes it's arbitrary and depend on context (as I guess were picked the
initial numb
These numbers are from experience of hours and hours staring at clusters logs,
but yes it's arbitrary and depend on context (as I guess were picked the
initial numbers which are there for years
Then why not the obvious solution Jacopo proposed of properties, easy to change
even dynamically...
I
While you are at it, we can fix it. Can you please check if the changes
suggested in the diff below are satisfactory. The additional comments are
just to explain the changes and are not meant to be committed.
Index: framework/service/src/org/ofbiz/service/ServiceDispatcher.java
=
I agree that bit of code is messy and confusing.
if ((Debug.verboseOn()...
...
Debug.logTiming(...
Huh? Shouldn't that be
Debug.logVerbose(...
?
If I have verbose on and timing off, then I will never see the log messages.
I really don't understand all of this complicated decision-making
On Apr 4, 2013, at 12:25 PM, Adrian Crum
wrote:
> No, please don't think I'm being adversarial or dismissive. This is a good
> discussion, and I appreciate your input.
That's great Adrian, thank you... and thanks to you I am also learning a lot of
new English words :-)
Jacopo
On 4/4/2013 11:18 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
On Apr 4, 2013, at 11:27 AM, Adrian Crum
wrote:
Isn't that what the next block of code does? If you want to have a message that
appears based on a set of conditions, then you can fuss around with the if
statement that follows the timing messag
On Apr 4, 2013, at 11:27 AM, Adrian Crum
wrote:
> Isn't that what the next block of code does? If you want to have a message
> that appears based on a set of conditions, then you can fuss around with the
> if statement that follows the timing message.
Yeah, of course everyone can easily add
Isn't that what the next block of code does? If you want to have a
message that appears based on a set of conditions, then you can fuss
around with the if statement that follows the timing message.
-Adrian
On 4/4/2013 9:58 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
This would be resolved by changing the me
This would be resolved by changing the message into something that clarifies
that the service took longer than a given threshold X; in this case the message
would be clear and could be useful to the new user (even if of course a message
based on a threshold is kind of arbitrary and doesn't tell
Having a condition like that is unfair to end users.
Let's say I'm a new OFBiz user. I just wrote my first service and I try
it out. I run the service, and check the logs. Weird - the service
engine says my service didn't run. I check my data - it appears the
service ran. I put some logging me
I agree it is arbitrary and sub-optimal solution but maybe I still liked it
more before the last commit: the risk now is that we have too much information
and no one will ever look at it.
The obvious workaround could be to set the threshold in a property file but
there are probably better soluti
Why not 20 or 30 or 40?
That's the problem with arbitrary values - they don't mean anything.
From my perspective, if anyone has timing enabled, then they want to
see what's going on in the system.
Feel free to change it.
-Adrian
On 4/3/2013 9:22 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
Hi Adrian, All,
Hi Adrian, All,
Should we really show the timing for all services?
Maybe increasing from 50 to 75 or even 100 for the 1st case would be enough?
Jacques
From:
> Author: adrianc
> Date: Wed Apr 3 07:57:24 2013
> New Revision: 1463863
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1463863
> Log:
> Log message
15 matches
Mail list logo
