You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tapestry.apache.org by Howard Lewis Ship <hl...@gmail.com> on 2014/08/01 22:03:20 UTC
Decrease number of ThreadLocal.get calls
This issue:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAP5-2333
has a patch that improves performance by a noticable amount BUT means that
we lose the "operations trace" (at least, in production).
I'm pretty sure I want to keep the operation trace, even at the cost of
performance.
Thoughts?
--
Howard M. Lewis Ship
Creator of Apache Tapestry
The source for Tapestry training, mentoring and support. Contact me to
learn how I can get you up and productive in Tapestry fast!
(971) 678-5210
http://howardlewisship.com
@hlship
Re: Decrease number of ThreadLocal.get calls
Posted by Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo <th...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, 01 Aug 2014 17:03:20 -0300, Howard Lewis Ship <hl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> This issue:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAP5-2333
> has a patch that improves performance by a noticable amount BUT means
> that we lose the "operations trace" (at least, in production).
> I'm pretty sure I want to keep the operation trace, even at the cost of
> performance.
What's this noticeable amount? A ballpark figure would be nice.
Could we control this by a configuration symbol and have the default being
working as it does now? This way, we can choose what trade-off we want.
--
Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo
Tapestry, Java and Hibernate consultant and developer
http://machina.com.br
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: Decrease number of ThreadLocal.get calls
Posted by Massimo Lusetti <ml...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 10:03 PM, Howard Lewis Ship <hl...@gmail.com> wrote:
This issue:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAP5-2333
>
> has a patch that improves performance by a noticable amount BUT means that
> we lose the "operations trace" (at least, in production).
>
>
Yep, production error reporting is more important then what it could seem,
It has saved me hours a lot of times.
> I'm pretty sure I want to keep the operation trace, even at the cost of
> performance.
> Thoughts?
>
>
I tend to agree but performance is a subtle subject.
I want to stress every bit out of my iron and I'm really intrigued by the
expected gain. To be fair I didn't have time to give it a whirl and haven't
fully read the last version of the patch but the only thing it seems to do
is to calculate description (within operationtrackerimpl) and spread it
over.
I would like to look at it, maybe this week.
Cheers
--
Massimo Lusetti
Re: Decrease number of ThreadLocal.get calls
Posted by Jochen Kemnade <ke...@gmail.com>.
Am 01.08.2014 um 22:03 schrieb Howard Lewis Ship:
> This issue:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAP5-2333
>
> has a patch that improves performance by a noticable amount BUT means that
> we lose the "operations trace" (at least, in production).
Apparently, it doesn't. According to the patch sumbitter, its latest
version has no functional impact. It's been a while since I looked it
over but it seemed fine to me.
> I'm pretty sure I want to keep the operation trace, even at the cost of
> performance.
Agreed.
Jochen