Peter Donald wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2001 00:53, Berin Loritsch wrote:
>
>>>hierarchy of methods on different components. ie Components C1, C2, C3,
>>>C4 and Methods M1, M2, M3 and M4 such that
>>>
>>>C1.M1 calls C2.M2 and C3.M3. C2.M2 calls C4.M4
>>>
>>>When profiling you want to know how much time in total was spent in M2
>>>and you also want to know how much time was spent in M4 (and thus how
>>>much was spent solely in M2 without calling M4). Now instead of dealing
>>>with methods this could be arbitrary resource usages.
>>>
>>I think I know where you are going. And I think we are talking about two
>>different types of profiling. For instance, the type of profiling that
>>this type of framework is best for would be tracking Pool MetaInformation,
>>or if DataSource Connection request/release was asymetrical (i.e. requested
>>but never closed...).
>>
>>You are thinking more along the lines of a traditional profiler that
>>handles coverage reports and length of time for each method. That would
>>never fit this model of profiling, and I think it would be wrong to force
>>it to happen.
>>
>>There are different types of profiling needs, and this addresses specific
>>profiling needs for Avalon. There are other profiling tools that address
>>the type of needs you are describing here.
>>
>
> Hmmm ... well I wasn't actually thinking about it in that way but I guess the
> example came across that way. Hmmm. I still think hierarchial points would be
> useful though
Check my response in the other email.
*your email may be slow....*
--
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
