DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20981>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20981 HTTPClient trace() calls a lot of overhead; consider isTraceEnabled() test ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2003-06-21 01:56 ------- Wrapping the calls in isTraceEnabled() would not make any difference because that's pretty much exactly what is done in the actual trace call right off the bat. The only reason to use isTraceEnabled() is when the construction of the actual string passed to the call would take time to create and this is not the case with the trace statements since they are static strings and thus are already instantiated and ready to go. Our only option is to remove the trace statements if we feel the improvement in performance is worthwhile. I would be surprised to find that the trace statements are the real bottleneck particularly when compared with the network latency. We'd need to do some profiling. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
