On Oct 26, 2006, at 8:31 PM, Mark DeLaFranier wrote:

Jacek,

I was going to do a top level diff, but it had lots of other diffs due to having other modified files. To reduce the complexity of the diff, I only diff'd the ServerMetaData.java file.

I am certainly not a svn experty  :-), but a current diff shows me:

> svn diff | wc
  1189    5247   49331

Thats quite a lot to filter out and make your job easier of assessing my patch.

What are your thoughts?

That's totally fine, Mark. It only takes a second to figure out where they go. Thanks for all the time you put into tracking this performance issue down!

You've got me curious about what you're working on that has you running OptimizeIt on the client :) No sweat of you're not at liberty to share too many details -- we're always happy to be on the receiving end of any kind of work people do with OpenEJB.

Thanks,
David


Thanks
Mark

Jacek Laskowski (JIRA) wrote:
     [ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPENEJB-295?page=all ]

Jacek Laskowski resolved OPENEJB-295.
-------------------------------------

    Fix Version/s: 2.2
       Resolution: Fixed
         Assignee: Jacek Laskowski

Sending        ServerMetaData.java
Transmitting file data .
Committed revision 468031.

Thanks Mark!

A (friendly) note: please run svn diff at the top-level directory of OpenEJB sources.


o.a.o.client.ServerMetaData optimization wrt InetAddress.getLocalHost -------------------------------------------------------------------- -

                Key: OPENEJB-295
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ OPENEJB-295
            Project: OpenEJB
         Issue Type: Improvement
         Components: general
   Affects Versions: 2.2
        Environment: Windows XP
           Reporter: Mark DeLaFranier
        Assigned To: Jacek Laskowski
           Priority: Minor
            Fix For: 2.2

        Attachments: OpenEJB-295.patch


While running OptimizeIt on a small test client, I stumbled across the call to "InetAddress.getLocalHost();" which was taking 33% in a client test. In this test the client was creating several copies of an InitialContext object rather than sharing one.






Reply via email to