Measure, don't guess! ;-) Perhaps setting up a set of JMH benchmarks would help? I know there's a Gradle plugin for it (wink wink, nudge nudge).
------------------------------------------- Java Champion; Groovy Enthusiast http://andresalmiray.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/aalmiray -- What goes up, must come down. Ask any system administrator. There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't. To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion. On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 4:13 PM, Cédric Champeau <cedric.champ...@gmail.com> wrote: > I would only make indy the default if we have performance tests showing > that it's as fast as, or better than the legacy call site caching, with JDK > 8+. There's a "performance" submodule that we could use for that purpose > too. As far as I remember, not too far away, there were quite a few cases > where indy was slower, in particular when primitive types are involved, > even on JDK 8. If we are faster, then it's obviously a big +1, but we > shouldn't speculate here. > > 2017-03-27 16:03 GMT+02:00 Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au>: > >> Russel, seems we were thinking about the same things. I responded to >> the earlier thread. Does that answer your question? >> In summary, we could start trying to move to indy only on master. I >> think stability wise we are in good shape. There are some question >> marks still however about indy performance in some circumstances, so >> we no doubt would want to do a fresh round of performance checks. >> >> Cheers, Paul. >> >> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 11:35 PM, Russel Winder <rus...@winder.org.uk> >> wrote: >> > On Sat, 2017-03-25 at 09:26 +0100, Jochen Theodorou wrote: >> >> […] >> >> >> >> I cannot suggest to users to use indy with a normal JDK7, so the >> >> minimum >> >> requirement for it is JDK8. And we are not there yet. >> > >> > I have to admit I am still of the opinion that you define a version >> > that will be the last version compatible with infrastructure X and the >> > say, if you want to use a later version upgrade your infrastructure. I >> > think Groovy is past that point with JVM; I do not see why development >> > of our product should be beholden to the inability of people to upgrade >> > from Java 7 to Java 8. >> > >> > Are we going to say that Groovy 2.5 will only work with JDK8 or does >> > that have to wait for 2.6 or 3.0? Given master is no beyond 2.5 can we >> > get rid of the two build set up for master and just have indy? >> > >> > -- >> > Russel. >> > ============================================================ >> ================= >> > Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 <+44%2020%207585%202200> >> voip: sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net >> > 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: rus...@winder.org.uk >> > London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder >> > >
