Re: [DISCUSS] new component for timing?

would be the scope/description of "Commons Monitoring"? > >> > > >> > Noting Romain's experience that the original "Commons" project > >> > evolved into "Sirona", it would be strange to start from scratch > >> > without a plan to not

Re: [DISCUSS] new component for timing?

... >> > >> > Gilles >> > >> > > On March 20, 2018 at 17:56:44, Bruno P. Kinoshita ( >> > > brunodepau...@yahoo.com.br.invalid) wrote: >> > > >> > > I think StopWatch and CircuitBreakers could be moved together to

Re: [DISCUSS] new component for timing?

related, or not > > (e.g. a > > circuit breaker for memory size). So probably commons-timing could be > > a > > good place for StopWatch, but maybe not for circuit-breaker. But I > > think > > both could be under commons-monitoring perhaps? > > >

Re: [DISCUSS] new component for timing?

ers could be moved together to the > > > same > > > component. However, a circuit breaker can be time-related, or not > > > (e.g. a > > > circuit breaker for memory size). So probably commons-timing could be > > > a > > > good place for S

Re: [DISCUSS] new component for timing?

nent. However, a circuit breaker can be time-related, or not > > > (e.g. a > > > circuit breaker for memory size). So probably commons-timing could be > > > a > > > good place for StopWatch, but maybe not for circuit-breaker. But I > > > think > > > bo

Re: [DISCUSS] new component for timing?

y commons-timing could be > > > a > > > good place for StopWatch, but maybe not for circuit-breaker. But I > > > think > > > both could be under commons-monitoring perhaps? > > > > > > From: Otto Fowler <ottobackwa...@gmail.com> >

Re: [DISCUSS] new component for timing?

same > > > component. However, a circuit breaker can be time-related, or not > > > (e.g. a > > > circuit breaker for memory size). So probably commons-timing could be > > > a > > > good place for StopWatch, but maybe not for circuit-breaker. But I > >

Re: [DISCUSS] new component for timing?

ld be > > > a > > > good place for StopWatch, but maybe not for circuit-breaker. But I > > > think > > > both could be under commons-monitoring perhaps? > > > > > > From: Otto Fowler <ottobackwa...@gmail.com> > > > To: Romain Manni-Bucau <

Re: [DISCUSS] new component for timing?

ons-monitoring perhaps? > > > > From: Otto Fowler <ottobackwa...@gmail.com> > > To: Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>; Commons Developers > > List < > > dev@commons.apache.org> > > Sent: Wednesday, 21 March 2018 10:30 AM > > S

Re: [DISCUSS] new component for timing?

> > good place for StopWatch, but maybe not for circuit-breaker. But I > > think > > both could be under commons-monitoring perhaps? > > > > From: Otto Fowler <ottobackwa...@gmail.com> > > To: Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>; Commons Developers &

Re: [DISCUSS] new component for timing?

ing perhaps? From: Otto Fowler <ottobackwa...@gmail.com> To: Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>; Commons Developers List < dev@commons.apache.org> Sent: Wednesday, 21 March 2018 10:30 AM Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] new component for timing? I would love to get this on track. I apologiz

Re: [DISCUSS] new component for timing?

ce for StopWatch, but maybe not for circuit-breaker. But I > think > both could be under commons-monitoring perhaps? > > From: Otto Fowler <ottobackwa...@gmail.com> > To: Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>; Commons Developers > List < > dev@commons.apache.org>

Re: [DISCUSS] new component for timing?

ns Developers List < dev@commons.apache.org> Sent: Wednesday, 21 March 2018 10:30 AM Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] new component for timing? I would love to get this on track. I apologize if I have made it more confusing than it needs to be, I’m trying to be open to all the suggestions. If we

Re: [DISCUSS] new component for timing?

gmail.com>; Bruno P. Kinoshita <brunodepau...@yahoo.com.br.invalid>; Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org> Sent: Wednesday, 21 March 2018 11:00 AM Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] new component for timing? If monitoring was started a new, and not re-viving the old monitor

Re: [DISCUSS] new component for timing?

;rmannibu...@gmail.com>; Commons Developers List < dev@commons.apache.org> Sent: Wednesday, 21 March 2018 10:30 AM Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] new component for timing? I would love to get this on track. I apologize if I have made it more confusing than it needs to be, I’m trying to be open to all the s

Re: [DISCUSS] new component for timing?

both could be under commons-monitoring perhaps? From: Otto Fowler <ottobackwa...@gmail.com> To: Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>; Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org> Sent: Wednesday, 21 March 2018 10:30 AM Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] new component for t

Re: [DISCUSS] new component for timing?

I would love to get this on track. I apologize if I have made it more confusing than it needs to be, I’m trying to be open to all the suggestions. If we assume that stack watch is worth ‘having’, then the question is where to put it. commons-monitoring / sirota seems to me to be a ‘complete’

Re: [DISCUSS] new component for timing?

Yes but consequence was a lack of community increase which is a killer for an incubator project on the long run. Le 17 mars 2018 15:19, "Gilles" a écrit : > On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 12:47:40 +0100, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > >> Le 17 mars 2018 11:49, "Gilles"

Re: [DISCUSS] new component for timing?

On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 12:47:40 +0100, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: Le 17 mars 2018 11:49, "Gilles" a écrit : On Thu, 15 Mar 2018 15:13:39 +0100, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: 2018-03-15 14:36 GMT+01:00 Otto Fowler : If we can come to consensus

Re: [DISCUSS] new component for timing?

Le 17 mars 2018 11:49, "Gilles" a écrit : On Thu, 15 Mar 2018 15:13:39 +0100, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > 2018-03-15 14:36 GMT+01:00 Otto Fowler : > > If we can come to consensus on the way forward, I’ll be happy to do the >> work (

Re: [DISCUSS] new component for timing?

On Thu, 15 Mar 2018 15:13:39 +0100, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: 2018-03-15 14:36 GMT+01:00 Otto Fowler : If we can come to consensus on the way forward, I’ll be happy to do the work ( although I’ll need help of course ). I guess I’m the straw that broke the camel’s back

Re: [DISCUSS] new component for timing?

2018-03-15 14:36 GMT+01:00 Otto Fowler : > If we can come to consensus on the way forward, I’ll be happy to do the > work ( although I’ll need help of course ). > I guess I’m the straw that broke the camel’s back then? ;) > > > > > On March 15, 2018 at 08:09:45, Gilles

Re: [DISCUSS] new component for timing?

If we can come to consensus on the way forward, I’ll be happy to do the work ( although I’ll need help of course ). I guess I’m the straw that broke the camel’s back then? ;) On March 15, 2018 at 08:09:45, Gilles (gil...@harfang.homelinux.org) wrote: Hi. On Thu, 15 Mar 2018 03:52:58 -0700,

Re: [DISCUSS] new component for timing?

Hi. On Thu, 15 Mar 2018 03:52:58 -0700, Otto Fowler wrote: I think bringing back commons-monitoring/sirota would only be possible if it were to be modular enough that you could bring in the ‘core’ classes without needing to bring in all of what sirota ended up being, which was an end to end

Re: [DISCUSS] new component for timing?

I think bringing back commons-monitoring/sirota would only be possible if it were to be modular enough that you could bring in the ‘core’ classes without needing to bring in all of what sirota ended up being, which was an end to end solution. commons-monitoring or commons-timing seem to be the

Re: [DISCUSS] new component for timing?

On Thu, 08 Mar 2018 16:03:24 +, Gary Gregory wrote: -1 to "commons-misc". It feels to me like a copout and unfocused like SomethingUtils. We need a proper home. +1 How about the idea of commons-measure. Just because the first feature would happen to be a timer? What other content do

Re: [DISCUSS] new component for timing?

-1 to "commons-misc". It feels to me like a copout and unfocused like SomethingUtils. We need a proper home. How about the idea of commons-measure. Then there still the idea of resurrecting other Apache projects. Kind of going in circles... Gary On Mar 8, 2018 08:58, "Otto Fowler"

Re: [DISCUSS] new component for timing?

So, could think about commons-misc or something? I don’t think we are going to come up with a perfect module for these things. Maybe the way it can work is: commons-misc exists. It is the landing place for things that seem to be outside the scope of commons-, but don’t justify a new module

Re: [DISCUSS] new component for timing?

On 2 March 2018 at 13:31, Oliver Heger wrote: > > One other suggestion: It was stated in the past that the concurrent > classes are also a bit out of scope for [lang], especially the circuit > breaker implementations. Would it make sense to move those into a new >

Re: [DISCUSS] new component for timing?

We could perhaps move some classes from the concurrent package too I think. Like the circuit breakers. That'd solve our current issue with java.desktop dependency and java9 Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Sat, 3 Mar 2018 at 3:45, Gary Gregory wrote: On Fri,

Re: [DISCUSS] new component for timing?

Am 02.03.2018 um 15:45 schrieb Gary Gregory: > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 7:31 AM, Otto Fowler wrote: > >> I don’t understand the options that we are discussing here. Can we >> clarify? >> >> * create a new component from sirota, bringing it into commons ( resurrect >>

Re: [DISCUSS] new component for timing?

On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 7:31 AM, Otto Fowler wrote: > I don’t understand the options that we are discussing here. Can we > clarify? > > * create a new component from sirota, bringing it into commons ( resurrect > commons-monitoring ) and put StackWatch there? >

Re: [DISCUSS] new component for timing?

2018-03-02 15:31 GMT+01:00 Otto Fowler : > I don’t understand the options that we are discussing here. Can we > clarify? > > * create a new component from sirota, bringing it into commons ( resurrect > commons-monitoring ) and put StackWatch there? > I would more push

Re: [DISCUSS] new component for timing?

I don’t understand the options that we are discussing here. Can we clarify? * create a new component from sirota, bringing it into commons ( resurrect commons-monitoring ) and put StackWatch there? On March 2, 2018 at 08:49:03, Romain Manni-Bucau (rmannibu...@gmail.com) wrote: This i right

Re: [DISCUSS] new component for timing?

This i right but it started as just a few utilities and interception modules, then it grows as any performance related project. We also have skywalking which is quite big but can host all that utility part @asf. Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau | Blog

Re: [DISCUSS] new component for timing?

My understanding is that sirona was/is a complete system, as opposed to a collection of utilities. If StackWatch is too big for LANG it seems too small for sirona. Along with sirona being retired etc. On February 28, 2018 at 15:06:52, Romain Manni-Bucau (rmannibu...@gmail.com) wrote: Le 28

Re: [DISCUSS] new component for timing?

Le 28 févr. 2018 19:27, "Matt Sicker" a écrit : This sounds almost like a sort of Commons Metrics type project. See < http://metrics.dropwizard.io/4.0.0/> for an example. There's a sandbox project called Commons Monitoring which may be similar. Sirona started from

Re: [DISCUSS] new component for timing?

This sounds almost like a sort of Commons Metrics type project. See < http://metrics.dropwizard.io/4.0.0/> for an example. There's a sandbox project called Commons Monitoring which may be similar. On 28 February 2018 at 10:56, Gilles wrote: > On Wed, 28 Feb 2018

Re: [DISCUSS] new component for timing?

On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 17:24:29 +0100, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: 2018-02-28 17:11 GMT+01:00 Gilles : On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 16:59:08 +0100, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: Hi guys, On that topic we can keep in mind we retired not a lot time ago Apache Sirona which was a

Re: [DISCUSS] new component for timing?

On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 08:56:07 -0700, Gary Gregory wrote: On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 6:35 AM, Gilles wrote: Hello. On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 04:56:36 -0800, Otto Fowler wrote: Hi, In the course of working through my pull request for adding new LANG functionality on

Re: [DISCUSS] new component for timing?

2018-02-28 17:11 GMT+01:00 Gilles : > On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 16:59:08 +0100, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > >> Hi guys, >> >> On that topic we can keep in mind we retired not a lot time ago Apache >> Sirona which was a perf framework industrializing a stopwatch to

Re: [DISCUSS] new component for timing?

On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 16:59:08 +0100, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: Hi guys, On that topic we can keep in mind we retired not a lot time ago Apache Sirona which was a perf framework industrializing a stopwatch to summarize it. We can make it live again and would probably be a better fir than

Re: [DISCUSS] new component for timing?

Hi guys, On that topic we can keep in mind we retired not a lot time ago Apache Sirona which was a perf framework industrializing a stopwatch to summarize it. We can make it live again and would probably be a better fir than commons cause you quickly need more than just some time measurement when

Re: [DISCUSS] new component for timing?

On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 6:35 AM, Gilles wrote: > Hello. > > On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 04:56:36 -0800, Otto Fowler wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> In the course of working through my pull request for adding new LANG >> functionality on top of the StopWatch class, the issue has been

Re: [DISCUSS] new component for timing?

Hello. On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 04:56:36 -0800, Otto Fowler wrote: Hi, In the course of working through my pull request for adding new LANG functionality on top of the StopWatch class, the issue has been raise as to if this functionality is ‘common’ or should be placed in a more specialized

[DISCUSS] new component for timing?

Hi, In the course of working through my pull request for adding new LANG functionality on top of the StopWatch class, the issue has been raise as to if this functionality is ‘common’ or should be placed in a more specialized commons- component. We would like to take the discussion to the