Ditto, I've only seen UTF-16 used for XML documents. All it takes is one
customer though ;-) I do not think we need to hold up a release for this
though.
Gary
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 9:10 AM, Matt Sicker wrote:
> I used UTF-16 to encode an XML file by accident once. That's about the
> extent th
I used UTF-16 to encode an XML file by accident once. That's about the
extent that I've ever used it.
On 18 May 2016 at 11:08, Mikael Ståldal wrote:
> Maybe not, if we assume that most users won't use UTF-16.
>
> (I don't use UTF-16, and I don't know any specific use case for it. I just
> though
Maybe not, if we assume that most users won't use UTF-16.
(I don't use UTF-16, and I don't know any specific use case for it. I just
thought it would be good to test it.)
There is no significant difference for US-ASCII, ISO-8859-1 and UTF-8.
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 6:02 PM, Remko Popma wrote:
Interesting. I'll take a look tomorrow.
I don't think this is a showstopper though, would you agree?
On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 12:29 AM, Mikael Ståldal
wrote:
> It seems like the new garbage-free string encoding method performs poorly
> with the UTF-16 charset.
>
> See AbstractStringLayoutStringEn
It seems like the new garbage-free string encoding method performs poorly
with the UTF-16 charset.
See AbstractStringLayoutStringEncodingBenchmark in log4j-perf which I just
committed to master branch.
My results, note utf16Encode:
Benchmark Mode Samples ScoreError Units
b
