From: Eric B. R. <eb...@tc...> - 2003-01-29 00:25:31
|
Is it really necessary to use org.webmacro.util.Clock (a background thread) to calculate the timestamp for logging? This seems like overkill considering WM should only log when your templates are messed up. It's not like WM's performance is going to drop 2-fold by using "new Date()" instead. Clock is only used in 3 places: o.wm.servlet.ServletLog, o.wm.util.LogFile, and o.wm.util.LogSource Can I remove this? Please? eric |
From: Marc P. <ma...@an...> - 2003-01-29 10:14:27
|
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 19:22:42 -0500, Eric B. Ridge <eb...@tc...> wrote: > Is it really necessary to use org.webmacro.util.Clock (a background > thread) to calculate the timestamp for logging? This seems like overkill > considering WM should only log when your templates are messed up. It's > not like WM's performance is going to drop 2-fold by using "new Date()" > instead. > > Clock is only used in 3 places: o.wm.servlet.ServletLog, > o.wm.util.LogFile, and o.wm.util.LogSource > > Can I remove this? Please? If I recall, this really was introduced due to heavy performance penalties. I think not using means getting very poor (unrealistic) performance while debugging, and this could in turn foul up your plans if your debugging involves an element of profiling. I may be wrong, but I remember this... Marc |
From: Sebastian K. <seb...@mu...> - 2003-01-29 17:28:45
|
Hi Eric, On Wednesday 29 January 2003 01:22, Eric B. Ridge wrote: > Is it really necessary to use org.webmacro.util.Clock (a background > thread) to calculate the timestamp for logging? This seems like > overkill considering WM should only log when your templates are messed > up. It's not like WM's performance is going to drop 2-fold by using > "new Date()" instead. > > Clock is only used in 3 places: o.wm.servlet.ServletLog, > o.wm.util.LogFile, and o.wm.util.LogSource well, that's not true. It's also used in o.w.resource.TimedReloadContext, that limits the amounts of checks, whether a given resource has been modified. Here, the current time (or an approximation) is needed everytime, a template is used, which can be really often. Why exactly do you want to remove it? Because of the extra thread? This should not matter in the bunch of threads servlet engines usually create. And a while ago, I added some methods that terminate the clock-thread when the web-application is stopped. Sebastian |
From: Lane S. <la...@op...> - 2003-01-29 17:59:05
|
Sebastian Kanthak wrote: >Hi Eric, > >On Wednesday 29 January 2003 01:22, Eric B. Ridge wrote: > > >>Is it really necessary to use org.webmacro.util.Clock (a background >>thread) to calculate the timestamp for logging? This seems like >>overkill considering WM should only log when your templates are messed >>up. It's not like WM's performance is going to drop 2-fold by using >>"new Date()" instead. >> >>Clock is only used in 3 places: o.wm.servlet.ServletLog, >>o.wm.util.LogFile, and o.wm.util.LogSource >> >> > >well, that's not true. It's also used in o.w.resource.TimedReloadContext, that >limits the amounts of checks, whether a given resource has been modified. >Here, the current time (or an approximation) is needed everytime, a template >is used, which can be really often. > >Why exactly do you want to remove it? Because of the extra thread? This should >not matter in the bunch of threads servlet engines usually create. And a >while ago, I added some methods that terminate the clock-thread when the >web-application is stopped. > this is a good reason to keep it as is? -lane > >Sebastian > > > > >------------------------------------------------------- >This SF.NET email is sponsored by: >SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! >http://www.vasoftware.com >_______________________________________________ >Webmacro-devel mailing list >Web...@li... >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webmacro-devel > > > -- Lane Sharman http://opendoors.com Conga, GoodTimes and Application Hosting Services http://opendoors.com/lane.pdf BIO |
From: Eric B. R. <eb...@tc...> - 2003-01-29 18:09:57
|
On Wednesday, January 29, 2003, at 01:08 PM, Lane Sharman wrote: > Sebastian Kanthak wrote: > Why exactly do you want to remove it? Because of the extra thread? > This should > not matter in the bunch of threads servlet engines usually create. And > a > while ago, I added some methods that terminate the clock-thread when > the > web-application is stopped. > this is a good reason to keep it as is? > > -lane I'm now thinking it is. Apparently I didn't see that usage of it last night while I was digging through the code. I see it now. eric |