Perhaps it's a problem with our implementation of the logger as well then. Nothing ever gets written to log when it was taking it's time.
----- Original Message ---- From: David E Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 7:32:35 PM Subject: Re: FOP Issues [Solved] Christian Geisert is probably listening in on this list, and he is involved in that part of the ASF (as well as a committer on OFBiz now). He might have some ideas about how to handle this better in FOP, but it may just be that FOP does a LOT of logging if certain levels are turned on, and they may not want to reduce or eliminate that. If it does expose a problem with it, then hopefully it will help them improve FOP! -David On Dec 10, 2007, at 6:16 PM, Chris Howe wrote: > How is it that we're able to handle the "ALL" fail safe priority? > Perhaps we can shoot something over to Apache FOP so they can handle > it as well. > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: David E Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 6:37:53 PM > Subject: Re: FOP Issues [Solved] > > > > You can also change settings for specific class packages so that the > logging level is not as verbose just for the fop classes. > > There are some examples of this in the current log4j config file. If > it's not obvious after looking for a few minutes please reply and I'll > > throw together an example or something. > > -David > > > On Dec 10, 2007, at 5:28 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: > >> You're right - thanks Chris! >> >> Let me see if there's a way to point FOP to a different config file >> so we don't have to change the project's config file. >> >> -Adrian >> >> Chris Howe wrote: >>> It's choking on the log4j. If you change the root logger in >>> framework/base/config/log4j.xml from ALL to INFO, back to normal. >>> ----- Original Message ---- >>> From: Adrian Crum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> To: [email protected] >>> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 11:39:37 AM >>> Subject: Re: FOP Issues >>> So much has changed between trunk and R4 that it would be a very > time >>> consuming task to go through a list of changed files to see which >>> one caused the problem. That's why I >>> suggested a profiler - it would spot the culprit right away. >>> Chris Howe wrote: >>>> It helps if one (me) reads before applying a solution. I had >>>> applied >>> Christian's patch to trunk and came up empty. I just did a c/o of >>> 4.0 >>> and viola...works OOTB. Adrian, I share your sentiments on the >>> issue. >>> That was the most draining exercise I've gone through with OFbiz >>> in I >>> don't know how long. Are there really that many files where the >>> culprit could be? >>>> ----- Original Message ---- >>>> From: Adrian Crum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 9:44:23 AM >>>> Subject: Re: FOP Issues >>>> >>>> >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1401 >>>> >>>> Chris Howe wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> I am having some trouble with FOP. It appears that performance >>>> >>>> suffers >>>> >>>> >>>>> exponentially for each additional page that is written in the body >>>>> (overflowing to the next page). Two pages takes about a minute to >>>> >>>> render. >>>> >>>> >>>>> Five pages takes about 10 minutes. Ten pages takes about a half >>>>> hour. Plenty of memory available in the JVM, plenty of CPU >>>> >>>> available as >>>> >>>> >>>>> well. It completes the screen renderer quickly and gets stuck in >>>> >>>> the FOP >>>> >>>> >>>>> portion. Any hints or OOTB templates that would mimic the page >>>>> overflow that I can test to see if it's choking on my template or > >>>>> if >>>> >>>> it's >>>> >>>> >>>>> just choking period? I've tried it with both .93 and .94. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> > > > >
