ThreadLocals containing JDK classes (StringBuilder, etc) are not a problem.
Their classloader is the system classloader, not the web app classloader,
so these ThreadLocals do not have a reference to the web app classes and do
not prevent web app classes from being garbage collected.
This idiom is safe:
class SafeClass {
// The type of this field is java.lang.ThreadLocal, and
// both the key (ThreadLocal) and the value (StringBuilder) are
JDK classes. // This idiom is safe and will not cause memory leaks
in web apps.
static ThreadLocal<StringBuilder> safe = new ThreadLocal<StringBuilder>();
private StringBuilder getThreadLocalStringBuilder() {
StringBuilder value = safe.get();
if (value == null) {
value = new StringBuilder(1024);
safe.set(value);
}
return value;
}
}
However, as soon as we create an anonymous subclass like below we cause
memory leaks again:
class MemoryLeakingClass {
// The type of this field is MemoryLeakingClass$1, an anonymous
subclass of java.lang.ThreadLocal!
// In a web app, the classloader of this class is the web app
class loader: may cause memory leak...
static ThreadLocal<StringBuilder> anonymousSubclass = new
ThreadLocal<StringBuilder>() {
@Override
protected StringBuilder initialValue() {
return new StringBuilder(1024);
}
};
}
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 11:32 AM, Ralph Goers <[email protected]>
wrote:
> I still am unclear as to why you are thinking GC-free mode won’t work in
> web apps. What is the issue with ThreadLocals that causes the problem? We
> are using ThreadLocals for other things that seem to be working.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Mar 8, 2016, at 3:05 PM, Remko Popma <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Some of the recent changes were to fix issues introduced by the reusable
> message idea. It is good that we are not rushing this release, and thanks
> everyone for your patience.
>
> I originally wanted to make GC-free mode the default to begin with, but it
> may be smart to initially require that users switch GC-free mode on
> explicitly, and only make it the default after it has gained a track
> record. (Even so, it would only be switched on automatically for non-web
> apps.)
>
> The async logger performance investigation is still ongoing. I hope to be
> able to resolve it and do the GC-free write-up including performance test
> results in the next few weeks. I am currently on a business trip, working
> with people creating low latency trading systems, and they have good ideas
> on how to investigate the performance regression, so that is helpful.
>
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 4:01 AM, Gary Gregory <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> I'm even more concerned now that more of the no-GC changes are coming in,
>> still, fast and furious.
>>
>> I see what smells like a lot of non-OO code fly by here and there: lots
>> if-else-if-else-if-else, as opposed to subclassing or delegation if
>> appropriate.
>>
>> Are we rushing toward this no-GC goal without considering speed
>> performance?
>>
>> Where are we on the async logger slow down investigation?
>>
>> Concerned and glad to see to much activity all at the same time,
>> Gary
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Remko (and anyone else who wants to try and solve this regression):
>>>
>>> https://www.jclarity.com/product/censum-free-trial/
>>>
>>> Go ahead and get the trial and the guys at JClarity will give us
>>> licenses. I'd use your apache.org email to be safe.
>>>
>>> On 3 March 2016 at 11:27, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> So far, Remko's proposal is language-neutral since he defined
>>>> endianness (big endian like java, but we could use either since ByteBuffer
>>>> supports both) and field widths..
>>>>
>>>> On 3 March 2016 at 03:15, Mikael Ståldal <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If we are to design a new binary log event format, then I think that
>>>>> we should make sure that it is not Java / JVM specific, and that it will
>>>>> be
>>>>> reasonably easy to implement reading and writing of it on other platforms.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 5:14 AM, Remko Popma <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-1305 as a
>>>>>> write up of my current thinking on the topic and a place to discuss
>>>>>> ideas.
>>>>>> Still need to add some things we discussed here (tools, endianness,
>>>>>> versioning etc).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's a fascinating topic but I still have a lot of work to do on the
>>>>>> GC-free epic before I can start working on this one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thursday, 3 March 2016, Remko Popma <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not Java Serialization, I was thinking simple ByteBuffer.putLong,
>>>>>>> putInt, putBytes. This is much more performant (
>>>>>>> http://mechanical-sympathy.blogspot.jp/2012/07/native-cc-like-performance-for-java.html).
>>>>>>> SBE (Simple Binary Encoding) seems overkill, but open to other opinions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The less conditional logic in there the better, so I'm not that
>>>>>>> interested in configurability. All log event fields,
>>>>>>> ok. ThreadContextMap/Stack keys and values: similarly to other repeating
>>>>>>> strings like logger names: write to separate mapping file & only write
>>>>>>> int
>>>>>>> values (for count as well as key/value indices) to the "main" log file.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Two things we would need to decide is how to handle versioning, and
>>>>>>> what Endianness to use.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Version information (possibly with schema info) could be written to
>>>>>>> the log file header.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Endianness could also be written to the header, or we could simply
>>>>>>> say we use network byte order (big endian). Intel chips use little
>>>>>>> endian,
>>>>>>> but apparently swapping is implemented with an intrinsic and is very
>>>>>>> fast.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thursday, 3 March 2016, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> At that point, it would be nice if it were extensible. There are
>>>>>>>> some neat binary formats we could use that would allow for that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2 March 2016 at 12:09, Gary Gregory <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think we'd need to provide all LogEvent fields.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Gary
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 9:13 AM, Remko Popma <[email protected]
>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That's what I meant, I didn't make myself clear. For example, we
>>>>>>>>>> could offer a simple binary layout:
>>>>>>>>>> time stamp (8 bytes)
>>>>>>>>>> level int (4 bytes)
>>>>>>>>>> thread ID (4 bytes) - Thread names in separate file
>>>>>>>>>> Logger ID (4 bytes) - Logger names in separate file.
>>>>>>>>>> message length (4 bytes)
>>>>>>>>>> message type (2 bytes)
>>>>>>>>>> message data (variable length)
>>>>>>>>>> throwable length (4 bytes)
>>>>>>>>>> throwable data (variable length)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's a very different approach to logging. On the plus side, this
>>>>>>>>>> would be extremely compact and very fast to write.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On the other hand it would require a separate tool to
>>>>>>>>>> decode/display the data in human readable form. Such a tool should
>>>>>>>>>> handle
>>>>>>>>>> text messages out of the box, but for custom messages I image there
>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>> be some plugin mechanism for custom decoders.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> All very interesting...
>>>>>>>>>> :-)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2016/03/03, at 0:01, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That's what I thought at first, but he means non-human readable
>>>>>>>>>> formats since we all use tools to parse logs as it is (Splunk and
>>>>>>>>>> ELK are
>>>>>>>>>> the big two I know of).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2 March 2016 at 02:15, Remko Popma <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Re: binary logging, I think he's talking about providing an API
>>>>>>>>>>> to log objects directly into byte buffers without turning them into
>>>>>>>>>>> Strings
>>>>>>>>>>> first.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-1274 and
>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-506
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> were created with that in mind and should be a good step in that
>>>>>>>>>>> direction.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2016/03/02, at 15:11, Gary Gregory <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I've often wondered about creating a binary format but it
>>>>>>>>>>> seems that you could use JSON+ZIP or BSON and get most of the
>>>>>>>>>>> advantages.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Gary
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 9:12 PM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> One other interesting thing I learned is that improper use of
>>>>>>>>>>>> logging is a huge source of performance problems. The GC-free
>>>>>>>>>>>> parameterized
>>>>>>>>>>>> message factory will help with one aspect of that (I suggested
>>>>>>>>>>>> parameterized messages, but he countered with the Object[] that is
>>>>>>>>>>>> created), and encouraging users to use a Supplier<String> instead
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> passing parameters should help as well (especially when those
>>>>>>>>>>>> parameters
>>>>>>>>>>>> have to be computed). He had some strong criticisms of logging APIs
>>>>>>>>>>>> promoting bad practices which stems all the way back to log4j1 and
>>>>>>>>>>>> affects
>>>>>>>>>>>> pretty much every logging API in Java (some criticisms were
>>>>>>>>>>>> actually
>>>>>>>>>>>> outdated or didn't consider newer features of the API like markers
>>>>>>>>>>>> and the
>>>>>>>>>>>> huge amount of filters available).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> His other big idea was promoting the use of binary logging
>>>>>>>>>>>> formats because humans rarely read the raw log files as it is, but
>>>>>>>>>>>> it's not
>>>>>>>>>>>> like there's a standard way to do that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Now I kinda wonder if he'll find this thread one day and tell
>>>>>>>>>>>> me how I misinterpreted him or something. ;)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1 March 2016 at 22:28, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alright, I learned some interesting things. I'm going to get
>>>>>>>>>>>>> us some tools we can use to try and profile this. Otherwise, he
>>>>>>>>>>>>> did suggest
>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying out this project:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/RichardWarburton/honest-profiler
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1 March 2016 at 19:31, Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So far he's said something about using lambdas for lazy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evaluation (though I don't think that would actually help us at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all). I'll
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> try to talk to him one-on-one afterward to delve more into this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1 March 2016 at 18:13, Ralph Goers <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, most of the tests have the commands in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comments right in the class. Just cut and past.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 1, 2016, at 1:43 PM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can't even figure out how to execute the simple perf test
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> class. IntelliJ gives me some annotation processing error, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the command line is turning into a classpath nightmare to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> figure out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what jars are needed to execute the test manually.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1 March 2016 at 11:34, Gary Gregory <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Before the talk: Hi, I'm Remko, I help on Apache Log4j, are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you available after the preso to talk about some issue we are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seeing?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 1, 2016 8:29 AM, "Matt Sicker" <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm attending a JUG meetup tonight with Kirk Pepperdine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presenting. It's supposed to be a Java performance workshop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type of thing,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so if you've got a decent way to ask about it, I could see if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he can help
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> figure out this regression. I can at least show off the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SimplePerfTest and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any microbenchmarks we have.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28 February 2016 at 11:54, Matt Sicker <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Take a look at the git bisect command. Might help you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> find which changes caused the problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 28 February 2016, Gary Gregory <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for digging in Remko. This is will be a nice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theme to publicize when you get it figured out.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 28, 2016 4:08 AM, "Remko Popma" <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After removing the potential impact of appenders and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> layouts by testing with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> log4j-core\src\test\resources\perf-CountingNoOpAppender.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> org.apache.logging.log4j.core.async.perftest.SimplePerfTest,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've confirmed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my initial numbers:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.0: 7.5M ops/sec
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.1: 6M ops/sec
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.2: 6M ops/sec
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.3: 6M ops/sec
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.4: 4.5M ops/sec
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.5: 4M ops/sec
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.6: 2M ops/sec
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I tried reverting various changes made to AsyncLogger
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since 2.0, performance improves a little up to 4M ops/sec.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, when completely reverting AsyncLogger source
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the 2.0 version, performance is back to 7.5M ops/sec.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll try starting from the 2.0 source and getting back
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to 2.6 functionality without losing performance...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Lengthy process...)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 12:18 PM, Remko Popma <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the PerfTestDriver test class (in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> log4j-core/test, package ...async.perf).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mainly perf3PlainNoLocation.xml:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RollingRandomAccessFileAppender, PatternLayout, all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> loggers are AsyncLoggers, logging a simple string without
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameters.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Profiling with YourKit did not tell me anything
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> useful.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm now eliminating the effect of Layouts/Appenders,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using CountingNoOpAppender, and seeing similar numbers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So this seems to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mostly an issue in AsyncLogger.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll let you know when I find out more.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's a lot of trial and error here, so this may
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> take a while...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Remko
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2016/02/26, at 21:02, Mikael Ståldal <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which components (appenders, layouts) are involved in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the tests? Would it be possible to do some profiling to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see if there is any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular component which is to blame?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:51 PM, Remko Popma <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To give you some rough impression on concrete numbers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for this trend:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.0: ~6M ops/sec
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.1-2.2: ~5M ops/sec
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.3-2.4: ~3-4M ops/sec
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.5: ~3M ops/sec
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.6: ~2M ops/sec
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, 26 February 2016, Remko Popma <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're absolutely right. I still have quite a few
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unit tests to add.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Initial perf testing shows a downward trend in Async
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Logger performance with every release. (Logging simple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> string messages without params.) This is worrisome and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm focusing on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> figuring that out first: this will likely involve
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> additional code changes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and I'll add more tests after that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2016/02/26, at 10:38, Gary Gregory <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wow, I love the activity we are seeing toward 2.6!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All the perf work on top of an existing sizable change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set. Very exciting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indeed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There sure are a lot of changes coming in. I hope
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that we all can pitch in to make sure most if not all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of these changes get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code coverage from unit tests. I've not checked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> closely, but it seems like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we may not have good coverage _yet_, or do I have the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong impression?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I want to make sure we keep our stability in tip top
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shape :-) and that we have no regression from previous
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> releases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [image: MagineTV]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Mikael Ståldal*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Senior software developer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Magine TV*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Grev Turegatan 3 | 114 46 Stockholm, Sweden |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> www.magine.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Privileged and/or Confidential Information may be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contained in this message. If you are not the addressee
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indicated in this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or responsible for delivery of the message to such a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person), you may not copy or deliver this message to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone. In such case,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you should destroy this message and kindly notify the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sender by reply email.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected]
>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected]
>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> [image: MagineTV]
>>>>>
>>>>> *Mikael Ståldal*
>>>>> Senior software developer
>>>>>
>>>>> *Magine TV*
>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>> Grev Turegatan 3 | 114 46 Stockholm, Sweden | www.magine.com
>>>>>
>>>>> Privileged and/or Confidential Information may be contained in this
>>>>> message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message
>>>>> (or responsible for delivery of the message to such a person), you may
>>>>> not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case,
>>>>> you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply
>>>>> email.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected]
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
