Hi all, I forgot to mention that we are still better than before. I think with the textile formatter, we would be still at 90Mbyte, wouldn't we?
Markus "The best way to predict the future is to invent it" -- Alan Kay On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Vassil Dichev <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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. >
