sebb wrote: > Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I have been working on adding logging to pool and dbcp per previous > > discussion here. I started with a partially instrumented version of > > pool 1.3 that I have been using to investigate bug reports and test > > performance. I used jdk logging with the following guidelines
> Might have been better to use one of the logging facades - or can JUL > be configured to co-operate with other logging implementations? ref: http://www.crazysquirrel.com/computing/java/logging.jspx http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-6.0-doc/logging.html http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-6.0-doc/api/org/apache/juli/package-su mmary.html > > While running with Config or higher levels, there does not appear to > > be any measurable performance impact, the instrumentation seriously > > clutters the already complex code. So I guess what I would like to > > propose is that we release both fully instrumented and minimally > > instrumented jars for these components, with the minimally > > instrumented version in trunk and a "-inst" version built from a copy > > of the release tag. > So there are now two versions of code that need to be maintained: > - a simpler trunk > - more complicated tag version > Seems to me that this adds a huge load to the release process, unless > some way can be found to add the logging automatically. I also see that as a concern, including for maintanence, unless the instrumentation could be automated during the build process. > > I know this seems like extra work for components that we are lacking > > volunteers for, but it could really help in resolving user issues if > > instrumented jars were available. Given that it isn't a performance hit, and given the benefits that are claimed, I would sooner we maintain a single branch with instrumentation than two branches. Phil, your thoughts? --- Noel --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
