We could create a branch, convert the code there to remove javolution and then
run some profiling on the two instances; we could define in advance (before
starting the actual work) the tools and tests we will use to measure the
performance.
Then people will run the same tests in their own boxes
That's the thing - measuring performance can be tricky. A while back I
ran across some code that didn't use fixed-count loops, but instead ran
the test code through a loop indefinitely until the loop execution time
stabilized - then the stabilized time was used as the measurement. That
I do think it's definitely worthwhile trying this out. Looking at the history
of javolution on their main page[1], they don't appear to have made much in the
way of changes for at least 2 years and possibly up to 5, meanwhile the JDK/JVM
continues to progress.
I was expecting to check the
I am reposting this thread with a different subject to make sure
everyone interested has a chance to comment.
To summarize (and to make sure we are all on the same page):
1. Javolution was added to the project in the JDK 1.4 days. David Jones
ran some performance tests that demonstrated a
On 05/30/2012 06:24 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
I am reposting this thread with a different subject to make sure
everyone interested has a chance to comment.
To summarize (and to make sure we are all on the same page):
1. Javolution was added to the project in the JDK 1.4 days. David
Jones ran
Perhaps my memory is failing but haven't you raised this topic before? What
was the outcome back then?
I think if you're planning to rehash old topics then it's good to call out the
previous discussions that have been had to give a full context. While I'm not
at all suggesting you are doing
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ofbiz-dev/201006.mbox/%3c2640abb5-65b1-4cb0-b360-2a97eac2e...@me.com%3E
-Adrian
On 5/31/2012 2:08 AM, Scott Gray wrote:
Perhaps my memory is failing but haven't you raised this topic before? What
was the outcome back then?
I think if you're planning
