On Apr 4, 2013, at 11:27 AM, Adrian Crum <[email protected]> 
wrote:

> Isn't that what the next block of code does? If you want to have a message 
> that appears based on a set of conditions, then you can fuss around with the 
> if statement that follows the timing message.

Yeah, of course everyone can easily add log messages to get the information 
required (at the moment that block doesn't show time related information); in 
fact it is not a big deal for me, this is not the kind of commit that concerns 
me.

By the way, I had to check in the dictionary the meaning of "to fuss" and I 
found:

"show unnecessary or excessive concern about something"

In light of this, if you think that I am wasting your time with unrealistic use 
cases then you can ignore me :-) I don't care much about this commit and you 
don't have to try to convince me; as I said I am not asking you to revert your 
commit, I simply added some information to the context because I felt it was 
missing from your arguments.

Jacopo

> 
> -Adrian
> 
> On 4/4/2013 9:58 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>> This would be resolved by changing the message into something that clarifies 
>> that the service took longer than a given threshold X; in this case the 
>> message would be clear and could be useful to the new user (even if of 
>> course a message based on a threshold is kind of arbitrary and doesn't tell 
>> you enough about performance) and may be ignored or not based on the nature 
>> of the service.
>> 
>> Jacopo
>> 
>> On Apr 4, 2013, at 10:17 AM, Adrian Crum 
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>>> Having a condition like that is unfair to end users.
>>> 
>>> Let's say I'm a new OFBiz user. I just wrote my first service and I try it 
>>> out. I run the service, and check the logs. Weird - the service engine says 
>>> my service didn't run. I check my data - it appears the service ran. I put 
>>> some logging messages inside my service and run it again. Cool - my log 
>>> messages appear, but the service engine still says my service didn't run. 
>>> So I dig deep into the service engine source code and discover that someone 
>>> decided my service wasn't important enough to log. That would be very 
>>> frustrating.
>>> 
>>> If you don't want to see timing messages, then turn them off.
>>> 
>>> Simple.
>>> 
>>> -Adrian
>>> 
>>> On 4/4/2013 8:57 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>> I agree it is arbitrary and sub-optimal solution but maybe I still liked 
>>>> it more before the last commit: the risk now is that we have too much 
>>>> information and no one will ever look at it.
>>>> The obvious workaround could be to set the threshold in a property file 
>>>> but there are probably better solutions that will require more work and 
>>>> design: for example it would be nice to enable usage statistical 
>>>> collections on services and entities (e.g. how many times a service was 
>>>> executed, the average time of execution, max time etc...) and then show 
>>>> this data in a screen; we could store this data in an entity or a file or, 
>>>> maybe better, keep it in memory (in a cache or similar) and let an admin 
>>>> enable/disable/reset this while the system is running (similarly to cache 
>>>> entries).
>>>> 
>>>> Just my 2 cents,
>>>> 
>>>> Jacopo
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Apr 4, 2013, at 9:22 AM, Adrian Crum 
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Why not 20 or 30 or 40?
>>>>> 
>>>>> That's the problem with arbitrary values - they don't mean anything.
>>>>> 
>>>>> From my perspective, if anyone has timing enabled, then they want to see 
>>>>> what's going on in the system.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Feel free to change it.
>>>>> 
>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 4/3/2013 9:22 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Adrian, All,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Should we really show the timing for all services?
>>>>>> Maybe increasing from 50 to 75 or even 100 for the 1st case would be 
>>>>>> enough?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> From: <[email protected]>
>>>>>>> Author: adrianc
>>>>>>> Date: Wed Apr  3 07:57:24 2013
>>>>>>> New Revision: 1463863
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1463863
>>>>>>> Log:
>>>>>>> Log message cleanup in ServiceDispatcher.java. Removed confusing text 
>>>>>>> about services taking too long.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Modified:
>>>>>>>    
>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/service/src/org/ofbiz/service/ServiceDispatcher.java
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Modified: 
>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/service/src/org/ofbiz/service/ServiceDispatcher.java
>>>>>>> URL: 
>>>>>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/framework/service/src/org/ofbiz/service/ServiceDispatcher.java?rev=1463863&r1=1463862&r2=1463863&view=diff
>>>>>>> ==============================================================================
>>>>>>> --- 
>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/service/src/org/ofbiz/service/ServiceDispatcher.java
>>>>>>>  (original)
>>>>>>> +++ 
>>>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/service/src/org/ofbiz/service/ServiceDispatcher.java
>>>>>>>  Wed Apr  3 07:57:24 2013
>>>>>>> @@ -571,10 +571,8 @@ public class ServiceDispatcher {
>>>>>>>         rs.setEndStamp();
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>         long timeToRun = System.currentTimeMillis() - serviceStartTime;
>>>>>>> -        if (Debug.timingOn() && timeToRun > 50) {
>>>>>>> -            Debug.logTiming("Slow sync service execution detected: 
>>>>>>> service [" + localName + "/" + modelService.name + "] finished in [" + 
>>>>>>> timeToRun + "] milliseconds", module);
>>>>>>> -        } else if (Debug.infoOn() && timeToRun > 200) {
>>>>>>> -            Debug.logInfo("Very slow sync service execution detected: 
>>>>>>> service [" + localName + "/" + modelService.name + "] finished in [" + 
>>>>>>> timeToRun + "] milliseconds", module);
>>>>>>> +        if (Debug.timingOn()) {
>>>>>>> +            Debug.logTiming("Sync service [" + localName + "/" + 
>>>>>>> modelService.name + "] finished in [" + timeToRun + "] milliseconds", 
>>>>>>> module);
>>>>>>>         }
>>>>>>>         if ((Debug.verboseOn() || modelService.debug) && timeToRun > 50 
>>>>>>> && !modelService.hideResultInLog) {
>>>>>>>             // Sanity check - some service results can be multiple MB 
>>>>>>> in size. Limit message size to 10K.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
> 

Reply via email to