Wow! I totally forgot about their insane numbering system. All this time, I thought version 40 was many months in the future. On Aug 2, 2013 6:34 PM, "Nick Williams" <nicho...@nicholaswilliams.net> wrote:
> I HATE their new numbering system. HATE. > > ABHOR. > > 7u40 comes after 7u25. So, yes, it's the next one. Set to release > mid-September. > > Nick > > On Aug 2, 2013, at 4:59 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 10:01 PM, Nick Williams < > nicho...@nicholaswilliams.net> wrote: > >> I can confirm that the JDK team /has/ committed the change to restore >> Reflection.getCallerClass() in Java 7u40: >> >> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7u/jdk7u40-dev/jdk/rev/244dbaeab45e >> >> So, hurray! Lol. >> > > With Oracle's new demented numbering scheme, how can you tell when this > version is coming? ;) Is that the next Java 7 or the one after that? > > Gary > >> >> Nick >> >> On Aug 1, 2013, at 9:48 AM, Remko Popma wrote: >> >> O(n log n) would not be too bad, but what you're describing sounds more >> like quadratic time! >> That's huge, Nick, congrats! That would mean a big speed improvement for >> the location-based layout patterns in Log4j, they use >> Thread.currentThread().getStackTrace() under the hood. Nice! >> >> -Remko >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* Nick Williams <nicho...@nicholaswilliams.net> >> *To:* Log4J Developers List <log4j-dev@logging.apache.org> >> *Sent:* Thursday, August 1, 2013 10:11 PM >> *Subject:* Re: Relfection.getCallerClass >> >> Here's something interesting. >> >> So the last method I had to write, >> StackTraceFrame.getStackTrace(Throwable), I finished last night. It's the >> alternative to Throwable.getStackTrace(). Instead of returning >> StackTraceElement[] (String for declaring class name), it returns >> StackTraceFrame[] (Class<?> for declaring class). I expected this to >> perform about the same or possibly even worse--boy was I wrong. >> >> StackTraceFrame.getStackTrace(Throwable) consistently returns in half the >> time that Throwable.getStackTrace() does. Looking at why that is, I found a >> HUGE inefficiency in Throwable.getStackTrace(). >> StackTraceFrame.getStackTrace(Throwable) walks the backtrace 1 time and >> runs O(n), where n is the number of elements in the stack trace. >> Throwable.getStackTrace() walks the back trace 1+(n/2) times (first it >> measures the depth of the back trace in one native method call, then it >> gets the elements by index in a native method call for each, looping up to >> that index each time), for an O(nlogn) (I think) running time. Much worse. >> >> So ... I improved Throwable.getStackTrace() and cut its running time in >> half while I was at it. This also resulted in cutting >> Thread.currentThread().getStackTrace()'s runtime in half. Think they'll >> appreciate it? :-/ >> >> N >> >> On Jul 31, 2013, at 4:42 PM, Paul Benedict wrote: >> >> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2013-July/019486.html >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >> Hm... do you have a URL for this ray of hope? >> >> Gary >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Paul Benedict <pbened...@apache.org>wrote: >> >> Nevermind. I just found it. Lousy browser caching! >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Paul Benedict <pbened...@apache.org>wrote: >> >> Did you find this out on the OpenJDK mailing list? I can't find the >> information; I may have missed it. >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >> KA-POW! Well done, sir. How about we use your mug as the new logo? ;) >> >> Gary >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Nick Williams < >> nicho...@nicholaswilliams.net> wrote: >> >> A PARTIAL VICTORY! >> >> They've decide to revert the change to Reflection.getCallerClass for 7u40 >> and the rest of 7. Woohoo! >> >> "What will happen to this method in JDK 8 requires further thought." >> >> Meanwhile, about 300 lines of Java and 1,000 lines of native code later, >> I'm about ready to submit my patch for a public API replacement in Java 8. >> >> N >> >> On Jul 29, 2013, at 8:39 AM, Gary Gregory wrote: >> >> What a mess :( it seem unlikely new APIs will be added to Java 8 to help >> us, at least based on comments like >> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2013-July/019110.html >> >> We might be left with documenting our side with "if you use features x >> and y in this context then the speed will degrade to so and so, here is >> where to ask Oracle to fix it: http:..." >> >> Gary >> >> On Jul 29, 2013, at 9:06, Nick Williams <nicho...@nicholaswilliams.net> >> wrote: >> >> core-libs-dev >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org >> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second >> Edition<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/> >> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> >> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/> >> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com >> Home: http://garygregory.com/ >> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> Paul >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> Paul >> >> >> >> >> -- >> E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org >> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second >> Edition<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/> >> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> >> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/> >> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com >> Home: http://garygregory.com/ >> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> Paul >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org > Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second > Edition<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/> > JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> > Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/> > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com > Home: http://garygregory.com/ > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory > > >
