On Mar 17, 2015, at 9:01 AM, Christopher Schultz
wrote:
>
> Jeremy,
>
> On 3/17/15 2:39 AM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
>> On Mar 7, 2015, at 10:13 AM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mar 6, 2015, at 7:43 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
Interesting. The deciding factor for me will be performance. Keep
Jeremy,
On 3/17/15 2:39 AM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> On Mar 7, 2015, at 10:13 AM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
>>
>> On Mar 6, 2015, at 7:43 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>> Interesting. The deciding factor for me will be performance. Keep in
>>> mind that we might not need all the API. As long as there is enou
On Mar 7, 2015, at 10:13 AM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
>
> On Mar 6, 2015, at 7:43 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> Interesting. The deciding factor for me will be performance. Keep in
>> mind that we might not need all the API. As long as there is enough to
>> implement WebResourceSet and WebResource, we p
On Mar 8, 2015, at 9:53 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>
> On 07/03/2015 18:13, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
>> I interpret that to mean that there is pretty constant time taken to
>> inflate 15MB of data - the 300ms to scan the archive and the ~350ms
>> to scan each of the jars within (each one that was used at
On 07/03/2015 18:13, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> I interpret that to mean that there is pretty constant time taken to
> inflate 15MB of data - the 300ms to scan the archive and the ~350ms
> to scan each of the jars within (each one that was used at least).
> The speed up here comes because we only scan
On Mar 8, 2015, at 5:28 AM, Christopher Schultz
wrote:
>
> Jeremy,
>
> On 3/7/15 1:13 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
>> On Mar 6, 2015, at 7:43 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>> Interesting. The deciding factor for me will be performance. Keep
>>> in mind that we might not need all the API. As long as ther
Jeremy,
On 3/7/15 1:13 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> On Mar 6, 2015, at 7:43 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> Interesting. The deciding factor for me will be performance. Keep
>> in mind that we might not need all the API. As long as there is
>> enough to implement WebResourceSet and WebResource, we probab
On Mar 6, 2015, at 7:43 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> Interesting. The deciding factor for me will be performance. Keep in
> mind that we might not need all the API. As long as there is enough to
> implement WebResourceSet and WebResource, we probably have all we need.
I ran a micro-benchmark using th
On 06/03/2015 15:30, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> On Mar 4, 2015, at 9:09 AM, Jeremy Boynes
> wrote:
>>
>> My suggestion for using an NIO2 FileSystem is because its API
>> provides for nesting and for random access to the entries in the
>> filesystem. Something like:
>>
>> Path war =
>> FileSystems.ge
On Mar 4, 2015, at 9:09 AM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
>
> My suggestion for using an NIO2 FileSystem is because its API provides for
> nesting and for random access to the entries in the filesystem. Something
> like:
>
> Path war = FileSystems.getDefault().getPath(“real/path/of/application.war”);
On Mar 4, 2015, at 3:49 AM, Konstantin Kolinko wrote:
>
> 2015-03-04 8:20 GMT+03:00 Jeremy Boynes :
>> In https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57251, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>
>>> The fix for bug 57472 might shave a few seconds of the deployment time but
>>> it doesn't appear to make a sig
2015-03-04 8:20 GMT+03:00 Jeremy Boynes :
> In https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57251, Mark Thomas wrote:
>
>> The fix for bug 57472 might shave a few seconds of the deployment time but
>> it doesn't appear to make a significant difference.
>>
>> The fundamental problem when running f
In https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57251, Mark Thomas wrote:
> The fix for bug 57472 might shave a few seconds of the deployment time but
> it doesn't appear to make a significant difference.
>
> The fundamental problem when running from a packed WAR is that to access any
> resource
13 matches
Mail list logo
