On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, Casey Lucas wrote:
>
> I noticed that for PageContextImpl you made a comment about removing
> the log dependency. Was this just because it was used on a case that
> "shouldn't happen" or is there another reason why jasper components
> shouldn't rely on tomcat logging code?
I noticed that for PageContextImpl you made a comment about removing
the log dependency. Was this just because it was used on a case that
"shouldn't happen" or is there another reason why jasper components
shouldn't rely on tomcat logging code?
Just wondering / checking, because some jasper stuf
On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, Casey Lucas wrote:
>
>
> Casey Lucas wrote:
> >
> > Just curious... why did you take out the buffer size double? Is that too
> > much memory to sacrifice? Someone ? recently sent this in as a performance
> > improvement patch.
Ops :-)
No, there is no problem with doub
Casey Lucas wrote:
>
> Just curious... why did you take out the buffer size double? Is that too
> much memory to sacrifice? Someone ? recently sent this in as a performance
> improvement patch.
Of course the line
tmp = new char [bufferSize + Constants.DEFAULT_BUFFER_SIZE];
also needs t
Just curious... why did you take out the buffer size double? Is that too
much memory to sacrifice? Someone ? recently sent this in as a performance
improvement patch.
You know I love anything that makes tags faster. :)
-Casey
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> costin 01/03/21 11:51:06
>
>
Glups sorry..
Now i'm trying to rebuild Tomcat 3.3 with that nice build and dist
dirs.., about 10 days out of tomcat almost enterely, biffed up of work,
i will try this night ( here ) to put up all my little things.. and
start doing another dev cycle, perhaps doing it better than the last
time ;)
Thanks.
I missed the obvious in the double array copy. Still, by doubling the buffer
size each time instead of incrementally increasing we are getting double the
speed with our degenerate test case.
1. Original - 22 seconds
2. As patched here - 13 seconds
3. With doubling of buffer as well - 6 s