Hi guys, On that topic we can keep in mind we retired not a lot time ago Apache Sirona which was a perf framework industrializing a stopwatch to summarize it. We can make it live again and would probably be a better fir than commons cause you quickly need more than just some time measurement when you start to work on these topics.
Just my 2 cts Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance> 2018-02-28 16:56 GMT+01:00 Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com>: > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 6:35 AM, Gilles <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> > wrote: > > > Hello. > > > > On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 04:56:36 -0800, Otto Fowler wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> In the course of working through my pull request for adding new LANG > >> functionality on top of the StopWatch class, the issue has been raise as > >> to > >> if this functionality is ‘common’ or should > >> be placed in a more specialized commons-xxxx component. > >> > >> We would like to take the discussion to the list for this, and see what > >> everyone thinks. > >> > >> The StackWatch provides for tracking nested timings backed by StopWatch. > >> You can start the watch, and start and stop multiple timings through the > >> call stack. Each timing is named and tag and has it’s own time. > >> You can visit all the timings, perhaps using the tags to filter when you > >> are done. Please see the PR/Jira for more details. You should look at > >> both, since the review has been split between the two. > >> > >> If not LANG, then where? The commons-testing component has been > >> mentioned. But this code is not ‘test’ code explicitly. In my use > case ( > >> I wrote this for the Apache Metron project and thought it might be > useful > >> here) it would not be test code, in the sense that it would be used in > >> ‘test’ scope in mvn. Rather it would be deployed in production, in a > >> REPL, > >> and perhaps in other runtime components. > >> > > > > Part of what makes a good component is that it does not dictate > > how and where applications should use it. > > The name "Testing" does not imply that its contents must be used > > within "test" scope. > > > > A utility such as "StackWatch" could be another tool to integrate > > in a unit test suite (e.g. to generate a more fine-grained timing > > report than Junit does). Hence the module in which "StackWatch" > > will belong is to become a dependency of modules that target > > specific test framework (and that is true whether the former is > > defined within "Testing" or in another component). > > > > I would not want to pull in junit > >> or other dependencies with any component containing it. > >> > > > > +1 > > Must be ensured by proper granularity of the modular design. > > > > If we put it in commons-testing ( which already has sub-modules which are > >> geared towards junit ) it may be confusing, even if the module is > explicit > >> about purpose and keeping out junit dependent code ( or other testing > >> code). > >> > > > > Why would it be confusing? The module will stand out on its own > > (artefact/description/doc/web site) and be more visible than yet > > another class in the already too large "Commons Lang". > > > > Also, besides the StackWatch, what else would go into the new target > >> component? Would StopWatch move as well for example? > >> > > > > +1 > > But creating a new component for two small classes can reasonably > > be argued as overkill. > > FTR: I was asked to collect the sampling utilities within a > > module of "Commons RNG" even though it could have warranted its > > own component (being a plain "client" of the core functionality > > of [RNG]). In the present case, "StackWatch" would belong to > > "core" utilities of "Testing" that are pulled (along with other > > dependencies by the more specific modules. > > > > I would ask all of us to step back for a moment and consider the big > picture. > > Specifically, what do you consider the mandate or guidelines for Commons > Lang to be? For me, this is code that should or could have been in the JRE > in java.lang or java.util. Looking ahead to Java 9, Commons Lang should > likely only depend on java.base (it does today but this should be enforced > with the Maven JDeps Plugin IMO.) > > If you look at StringUtils, you can then see how this class has grown into > a giant. You can also then see why other related code like a fancier > String.replace() could creep in as StrSubstitutor and friends. Should > variable interpolation have been in the JRE? Debatable, but it would be > useful on top of Properties and ResourceBundle, one might argue; also handy > for JAXB I would say. Nevertheless, WRT to Commons Lang, we -- rightly IMO > -- have deprecated StrSubstitutor in Commons Lang in favor or its new home > in Commons Text, where is has evolved further. > > In my view, StopWatch and now StackWatch, do not belong in the JRE or > Commons Lang. It should sit slightly above that level. Where, is the > question. > > Commons Testing for Stop/StackWatch does not seen quite right to me. I > could see a new Commons Timing or a more general Commons Measurement; with > a mandate NOT to overlap with Joda-Time and java.time. > > Gary > > > > > > Gilles > > > > > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LANG-1373 > >> > >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LANG-1373?page=com. > >> atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment- > >> tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16377279#comment-16377279> > >> https://github.com/apache/commons-lang/pull/311 > >> > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > > > >
