I see. I was surprised that it only tests the throughput of checking whether a log level is enabled; I guess I expected something else. Sorry for the knee jerk reaction.
I still have ideas to improve some of the implementation mechanics, I'll follow up on them separately. Sent from my iPhone On 2013/06/04, at 12:49, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> wrote: > The test really does do what it is supposed to. If you add some code that > causes a minor amount of overhead when logging is disabled this test will > fail. It is there to detect that kind of serious problem. > > Ralph > > On Jun 3, 2013, at 7:11 PM, Remko Popma wrote: > >> I agree with Gary that this test needs some work (or should not be part of >> the build: a proper performance test needs 5-10 seconds warmup, so these >> kind of tests end up taking too long to be run together with the functional >> JUnit tests). >> >> I don't think this test does what it is trying to do. (It won't detect new >> performance issues.) >> >> So I agree with Nick we don't need to treat this as a showstopper. >> >> Remko >> >> PS >> FWIW, I cannot reproduce the issue on my PC at work. >> >> PS2 >> Cut off lower half of this mail to prevent Apache mailer daemon from >> bouncing my message. >> >> Sent from my iPhone --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
