Ceki Gulcu skrev den 11-12-2008 16:04:
There is no point in digging into into the archives. Unless you can
point to a mistake in the test case I provided yesterday, it
irrefutably demonstrates that LogMF does not offer equivalent
performance.
There is the minor thing that you are not using the result returned by
the format routines. Hence the JIT _MAY_ have done optimization tricks
influencing the numbers you see. Also you have not shown that the
output numbers are statistically representative (i.e. close to the mean
of several runs) and how the numbers are if you test slf4J before log4mf
(as HotSpot optimizations may kick in while testLogMF is being run).
Is the resolution of your nanotime function high enough that the
differences over a single format()-invocation is usable for summarizing,
i.e. can you inject the measurement code in a real life scenario?
--
Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen "...plus... Tubular Bells!"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org
