X-Received: by 10.224.190.193 with SMTP id dj1mr3845049qab.6.1359609096093; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 21:11:36 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.49.81.72 with SMTP id y8mr742120qex.42.1359609096007; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 21:11:36 -0800 (PST) Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!news.glorb.com!p13no7285700qai.0!news-out.google.com!k2ni4274qap.0!nntp.google.com!p13no9023279qai.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 21:11:35 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <5109da3d$0$294$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=217.172.23.24; posting-account=Z-5a_wkAAABTzN1pAiC7xNW_xfTNp2Vr NNTP-Posting-Host: 217.172.23.24 References: <0cfefb99-94f9-44e0-9b58-926818a9560d@googlegroups.com> <3srNs.105645$EO2.76867@newsfe04.iad> <9fb16fc4-def9-4dba-9076-9d7dba10894e@googlegroups.com> <5108747b$0$293$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <3e90248c-5647-4099-b848-c0b1fc8745ab@googlegroups.com> <5109da3d$0$294$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: ultralog: new concept of logging API From: Mikhail Vladimirov Injection-Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 05:11:36 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:21911 On Thursday, January 31, 2013 6:43:03 AM UTC+4, Arne Vajh=F8j wrote: > But did you measure if it actually does result in a significant > difference in performance? >=20 > If not then the performance argument is a bit thin. Ultralog is not supposed to be faster logger. It supposed to be garbage-fr= ee and lock-free logger. If one is developing garbage-free application, he= or she has to use garbage-free logger, even if it is slower that mainstrea= m one. If one is developing lock-free application, lock-free logger is nee= ded. Though, performance tests I did show that ultralog is at least not slower t= han log4j which is de facto standard mainstream logging framework. On Thursday, January 31, 2013 6:43:03 AM UTC+4, Arne Vajh=F8j wrote: > But that raises the question: why did that logger fail to achieve > traction? Maybe it didn't fail. Maybe it failed because people was not ready to sacr= ifice code readability for performance and use home-grown solutions instead= . Who knows?