On 23 October 2011 09:01, Maurizio Cucchiara wrote:
> I'm not sure I understand what exactly you mean.
> I added the $Date$ property among the other keywords, but I have no
> intention to include other than $Id$ property.
> I added the other keywords just to adapt with the other files.
> Can this
I'm not sure I understand what exactly you mean.
I added the $Date$ property among the other keywords, but I have no
intention to include other than $Id$ property.
I added the other keywords just to adapt with the other files.
Can this cause trouble?
Twitter :http://www.twitter.com/m_cucchiara
On 22 October 2011 02:28, wrote:
> Author: mcucchiara
> Date: Sat Oct 22 01:28:28 2011
> New Revision: 1187627
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1187627&view=rev
> Log:
> Added svn keywords property
$Date$ causes problems when comparing SVN tags with source archives.
That is because $Dat
This is the result of the performance comparison:
Apache Commons OGNL http://s.apache.org/H1u
Legacy OGNL implementation http://s.apache.org/ih
There is a huge difference. Furthermore, looks like I need to refine
declarative method cache.
Twitter :http://www.twitter.com/m_cucchiara
G+
For the record, starting from now, OGNL Runtime has a new setCacheFactory
method which allows the user to choose his preferred implementation.
Twitter :http://www.twitter.com/m_cucchiara
G+ :https://plus.google.com/107903711540963855921
Linkedin:http://www.linkedin.com/in/mauriz
Apropos the idea of the maven profile is very good.
+1 and thank you.
Twitter :http://www.twitter.com/m_cucchiara
G+ :https://plus.google.com/107903711540963855921
Linkedin:http://www.linkedin.com/in/mauriziocucchiara
Maurizio Cucchiara
On 22 October 2011 12:24, Maurizio Cucchi
Sure you can, before that I should merge new branch with the current trunk.
Further, FYI I have just submitted a patch for a small improvement
http://issues.carrot2.org/browse/JUNITBENCH-40
Twitter :http://www.twitter.com/m_cucchiara
G+ :https://plus.google.com/107903711540963855921
L
Hi Mau,
that for the explanation, that really helps on clarifying the graph!!!
I have an idea about merging the tests in trunk with a profile
approach that I already submitted for the Disruptor project[1] - they
have performance/benchmark tests too - if it is fine for you I can
work on it - not t
I almost forgot there are even old vs commons comparison. Stay tuned :)
Twitter :http://www.twitter.com/m_cucchiara
G+ :https://plus.google.com/107903711540963855921
Linkedin:http://www.linkedin.com/in/mauriziocucchiara
Maurizio Cucchiara
On 22 October 2011 09:58, Maurizio Cuc
Thank you Simo,
Ok, I realized after that the graph needs at least a short explanation:
In that test I have tried to test every caches which I re-engineered.
In the graph you mentioned, there are depicted 3 different kind of
cache implementations:
1. Concurrent HashMap (CHM)
2. Thread-safe HashMap
Hi Mau,
sorry for the silly question - I'm not familiar with JUnit benchmark -
: is there any reason why performance tests have to be separated from
the rest of the project? Can we think about merging them in the core
once reached the general/lazy consensus?
TIA, have a nice WE!
Simo
http://people
Hi Mau!
amazing work, congratulations!
I saw results http://s.apache.org/N2u can you give me please a hint
how to interpret the graphic?
What do you think about comparing performances between actual
implementation and improved implementation?
Thanks for the extraordinary effort!
Simo
http://people
Hi guys,
I have just committed a new maven project, principally focused on
performance analysis of the new cache implementation (see
http://s.apache.org/YKp ).
I put it on the root of the OGNL project, please feel free to move it
on the most appropriate place.
I count to publish the test results AS
13 matches
Mail list logo
