> I am sorry you feel embarrassed. While bugs happen, your effective code to > bug ratio is quite excellent... and this is the kind of bug we like to have:
Thanks for the kind words. I feel relieved we found the bug as well, of course, but the first reaction was mild annoyance that I caused some lost time debugging, including for myself. I just wanted to correct the others that "making ESME 5000 times better" is not the complete picture ;-) I didn't change the design or make significant refactoring, for example. I also wanted to tell my story as a learning experience for others- things don't always seem so straightforward as they seem. It's exactly as you said- people are often prone to jump to conclusions about Scala, Lift, REST, databases, cache, sessions, etc. It happens every day. It just occurred to me that we can add another point to our design philosophy page- measure and test extensively before making conclusions about the merit of a certain technology or pattern. > So, in the future, we definitely need more tests (both as part of the > development process and integration/performance tests). We also need to > work together to address the results of the tests. Results of a single test > should not be viewed as a repudiation of a design. Tests should be > invitations to either fix a bug (as in this case) or in the event that a bug > cannot be fixed without significant refactoring, a reasoned discussion of > the merits and likely performance implications of another design.
