The real fix here was that the test was using > (greater than 1ms), but
if the test ran exeptionally well then the difference was less than 1ms.
So changing to >= actually fixes currentTimeMS, and nano just makes it
unlikely ever to be =.
Andy.
On 16/07/2014 10:55, Jean-Louis Monteiro wrote:
The fix is fine, was mainly to share this interesting reading more
than anything else
Romain Manni-Bucau
Twitter: @rmannibucau
Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
2014-07-16 10:55 GMT+02:00 Jean-Louis Mon
Ah ok, did not answer yesterday cause I was wondering if my eyes were
blinking or if I was totally out.
What about the test?
Do we remove it?
--
Jean-Louis Monteiro
http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
http://www.tomitribe.com
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau
wrote:
> Yep
>
>
Yep
the link was not linked (hehe) to this particular test but was more generic.
Romain Manni-Bucau
Twitter: @rmannibucau
Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
2014-07-16 10:40 GMT+02:00 Jean-Louis Monteir
right, wrong blue, green ... not enough
If we don't need high precision, still not see any link to the blog entry
you pointed.
The test explicitly test we don't fire any asynch method before the bean
become fully initialized (end of @PostConstruct).
That is the only test method of this class.
we don't care ns or ms in our tests (which is fine since that's not
exactly what we test) but both are wrong, that's all :).
Romain Manni-Bucau
Twitter: @rmannibucau
Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
20
Not sure to understand your point/msg.
I don't really care about the 10 pages benchmarks and I have no time to
read it.
I only care about the java contract and JVM implementations accordingly.
It looks out of context here IMHO as we don't care about the absolute
precision, we only care about the d
can't resist: http://shipilev.net/blog/2014/nanotrusting-nanotime/
Romain Manni-Bucau
Twitter: @rmannibucau
Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
2014-07-15 17:58 GMT+02:00 Jean-Louis Monteiro :
> Definitel
Definitely for measuring delay nanoTime is better and much more accurate
than timeMillis especially on non unix machins.
--
Jean-Louis Monteiro
http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
http://www.tomitribe.com
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 5:51 PM, wrote:
> Author: andygumbrecht
> Date: Tue Jul 15 15:51:
