Hi, Wenlong. On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Wenlong Li <[email protected]> wrote: > btw, Alexey, Let's go back to discuss whether there is a need to > include this feature in Harmony, given 17% performance gain in Linux > when using your methodology. For windows test, I will double check the > backgroud process as you pointed out.
My opinion was already expressed after I had finished the tests from my side: the boost can be achieved in specific conditions, so whether it's worth including into Harmony really depends on how much mess the patch would introduce besides the "performance boost". From what I see, the patch obliges the maintainer to maintain the correct mapping between jars and Java packages. This new feature is also spread between Classlib and VM, but it seems like DRLVM specific. In this case I would rather stay without the patch. Personally (if I'll be committer) I would accept the patch with two serious modifications: 1. Stay within DRLVM, do not introduce this feature into Classlib, get the thing tested and evolved on DRLVM side. Otherwise it might break the compatibility with other VMs. 2. Make the mapping generated automatically (during build process?) to free the burden for maintainers. Thanks, Aleksey.
