The idea behind these binaries is to give everyone the opportunity to make decisions with regards to the technical gates:
1. Does it pass the integration tests 2. Is it roughly equivalent in terms of performance to 3.0.4 (can be better or up to say 5% worse) There are additional criteria people can consider as well. These proof of concept builds should at least allow everyone to compare like with like... as I have made a bit of effort to ensure that the diffs between the branches are as minimal as I can get them (i.e. just what is required to support the logging framework, no colorised loggers) For people who see being able to implement colorised logging: 1. Logback and Log4j2 support this natively 2. JUL could be written to support this (i.e. we need to write a custom Formatter anyway, no reason we couldn't add the ANSI support too) 3. Log4j 1.2 doesn't support, but hey if we want to we could always write and maintain that! (If we want to have [WARNING] as before we would have to write a formatter anyway... once again, while we are in there!) On 12 December 2012 11:40, Stephen Connolly <stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com > wrote: > I have built some binaries for people to play with: > > http://people.apache.org/~stephenc/ > > MD5 (apache-maven-3.1.0-pre-jul.tar.gz) = dd40afbfa64ab53f614ede19385e4a48 > MD5 (apache-maven-3.1.0-pre-jul.zip) = 731fe7136e96e2027d145d993d917f20 > MD5 (apache-maven-3.1.0-pre-log4j.tar.gz) = > 63fead6accb60ca52c8a299c39d172f5 > MD5 (apache-maven-3.1.0-pre-log4j.zip) = 64982b6395a80bb6f2d27020c9f439be > MD5 (apache-maven-3.1.0-pre-log4j2.tar.gz) = > cc38e6f2110d9e76f6fc9feb29c48500 > MD5 (apache-maven-3.1.0-pre-log4j2.zip) = 77eda0a4bbb6f82cfdff8e8afb408dd5 > MD5 (apache-maven-3.1.0-pre-logback.tar.gz) = > b51215f3e1c5589772b4d65c68f28654 > MD5 (apache-maven-3.1.0-pre-logback.zip) = 6af89e67b1dca4699ef0ce57c3db6a5f > > They should all behave roughly similarly... though the log4j 1.2 version > will probably output [WARN] and not [WARNING] > > > > On 12 December 2012 10:40, Stephen Connolly < > stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I am working on getting some branches for different options. >> >> I think I have the logging/slf4j-jul branch done... >> >> I think my logging/slf4j-log4j2 branch is correct >> >> I am fairly certain my logging/slf4j-logback branch is correct >> >> My logging/slf4j-log4j (i.e. 1.2) branch needs some tweaks >> >> If somebody can run the integration tests on those branches and report >> the results here that would be great. >> >> >> On 12 December 2012 08:48, Stephen Connolly < >> stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Can we get a set of baseline git hashes for any versions of maven that >>> we are comparing. I might see if I can pull logback out of the latest RC >>> and put log4j2 and some other impls in its place so we can get some real >>> apples for apples comparisons going >>> >>> >>> On 12 December 2012 08:35, Kristian Rosenvold < >>> kristian.rosenv...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Yeah, measuring performance on modern cpu's is totally borked. To get >>>> any real measurements one probably needs to to average of 100 non-stop >>>> builds or similar, to counter for all the dark magics intel do with >>>> temperature-based overclocking. >>>> >>>> I think I've seen somewhere that it's possible to disable all the >>>> cpu-voodo in the bios. But what a pain to reboot to change those >>>> settings ! Or dig out the old Pentium4 from the closet. >>>> >>>> Kristian >>>> >>>> 2012/12/12 Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>: >>>> > I checked out Maven and used its build as a comparison. First, I ran >>>> the log4j 2 build and it was taking around 59 seconds. I then changed the >>>> log4j2.xml to remove the colors. I then got an average time for Log4j 2 of >>>> 54.76s and for Logback I get an average of 55.225s. I consider these >>>> differences to be meaningless. >>>> > >>>> > For reference, the log4j2.xml I used is attached. >>>> > >>>> > Ralph >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > On Dec 11, 2012, at 11:19 PM, Stephen Connolly wrote: >>>> > >>>> >> Well I am not going to tar and feather log4j2 based on one set of >>>> runs on >>>> >> my machine. I would like somebody else to repeat and confirm first >>>> as there >>>> >> could have been some background OS update or other process stealing >>>> CPU >>>> >> while doing the 3 log4j2 runs. >>>> >> >>>> >> Also I do not know if I am comparing the same things. Afaik the log >>>> back >>>> >> branch has the latest fixes in it, while the log4j2 branch is the >>>> colorized >>>> >> one from a few weeks back and likely has not got the fixes required >>>> for the >>>> >> issues you identified with the last 3.1.0 RC >>>> >> >>>> >> We need to compare like with like to make an informed decision... I >>>> am just >>>> >> putting some numbers down as a starting point >>>> >> >>>> >> -Stephen >>>> >> >>>> >> On Wednesday, 12 December 2012, Kristian Rosenvold wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >>> Finally some interesting numbers, and if (heaven forbid) this >>>> decision >>>> >>> should be based on >>>> >>> technical grounds, this is one of the first significant pieces to >>>> come >>>> >>> up in this discussion. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Since I am quite unfamiliar with logging (I use loose coupling and >>>> >>> tests instead ;), I took the opportunity to read >>>> >>> http://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/performance.html Somehow the >>>> >>> real-life results don't seem to match up with the advertising blurp >>>> on >>>> >>> the log4j site. While it hardly surprises me, I was wondering if >>>> >>> anyone actually knows why? >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Kristian >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> 2012/12/12 Stephen Connolly <stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com >>>> <javascript:;> >>>> >>>> : >>>> >>>> The consistent times (i.e. repeated runs after discarding the >>>> first) are: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 3.0.4: 1min18sec >>>> >>>> logback: 1min13sec >>>> >>>> log4j2: 1min34sec >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The second test was building GIT hash >>>> >>>> 85dd6e37456d30d2661e10b044efa9036c528023 of jszip-maven-plugin (@ >>>> >>> jszip.org) >>>> >>>> with the following command line: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> mvn -o -X clean verify -DskipTests -Dinvoker.skip >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> [Testing heavy logging] >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 3.0.4: 12.1sec >>>> >>>> logback: 12.2sec >>>> >>>> log4j2: 12.5sec >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org<javascript:;> >>>> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: >>>> >>> dev-h...@maven.apache.org<javascript:;> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org >>>> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
