Dissertaç ˜ao de Mestrado Mestrado em Engenharia Informática Jo ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

5. FRAMEWORK EVALUATION 5.3. Performance Validation time to convert the file into generic XML, step 1, and the time to convert the file from XML into its original syntax, step 2. File α: Step 1: 0,143 s Step 2: 0,073 s Total time: 0,216 s File β: Step 1: 0,191 s Step 2: 0,086 s Total time: 0,277 s File γ: Step 1: 0,463 s Step 2: 0,262 s Total time: 0,725 s This test shows that for short configuration files, the elapsed times to convert a file to XML and back to its original format are similar. An interpretation of these results might be that the configuration work done by the tool is very small, whereas the majority of the elapsed time was spent doing computational tasks such as memory allocations, etc. However, as the files become bigger, so does the time to convert them, although in a disproportionate way. γ is almost 5 times bigger than β, nevertheless, γ only takes 2.5 times more than β to be converted in both ways. Taking into account the average file size of VIRTU’s use case application configuration files, which is nearly 20KB, we can also conclude that the time spent to configure a configuration file is sustainable. Nevertheless, the tool may require considerable amounts of time to carry certain tasks, like parser creation. During implementation, we realised that some parsers took a while to compile while others were compiled almost instantly. Following is an analysis to the JavaCC parser generator which, in spite of approaching elements that fall out of this dissertation scope, aims at comprehending the impact of the parser generation process in the tool’s performance. In this analysis, we compile the three parsers that the tool supports by default and present the elapsed times for each (Table 5.1). An interpretation of the obtained times might tell us that the needed time to compile a parser is also sustainable. However, the compiled parsers are not too complex and basing any conclusion exclusively on these timings may be misleading. To assess more accurately the 64
5. FRAMEWORK EVALUATION 5.3. Performance Validation INI Apache XML 0,270s 0,280s 0,300s Table 5.1: Elapsed times for parser compilation in JavaCC required time for parser generation tasks, we compiled a parser which recognizes a more complex language, the Java language, and the elapsed time was 0,550s. This allows us to conclude that, even for fairly complex languages, the parser generation time is very bearable. Nonethe- less, these timings refer to the JavaCC parser generator, as we also generated some parsers with SableCC and, although most parsers took as long as JavaCC’s to compile, parsers for very complex languages can take up to minutes to compile. 65
Page 1:
Universidade Nova de Lisboa Faculda
Page 5:
To my family and friends, who suppo
Page 9:
Sumário Entre os sectores de tecno
Page 12 and 13:
CONTENTS 3.5 Modifying the Configur
Page 15:
List of Figures 2.1 Virtual applian
Page 19 and 20:
List of Listings 1.1 Apache configu
Page 21 and 22:
1 Introduction This dissertation pr
Page 23 and 24:
1. INTRODUCTION 1.2. Problem Descri
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29:
1. INTRODUCTION 1.5. Document Organ
Page 32 and 33:
2. STATE OF THE ART AND RELATED WOR
Page 34 and 35: 2. STATE OF THE ART AND RELATED WOR
Page 41 and 42: 3 An application reconfiguration fr
Page 43 and 44: 3. AN APPLICATION RECONFIGURATION F
Page 55: 3. AN APPLICATION RECONFIGURATION F
Page 58 and 59: 4. AN IMPLEMENTATION 4.2. Parser Ge
Page 60 and 61: 4. AN IMPLEMENTATION 4.4. Data Stru
Page 62 and 63: 4. AN IMPLEMENTATION 4.4. Data Stru
Page 64 and 65: 4. AN IMPLEMENTATION 4.5. Original
Page 66 and 67: 4. AN IMPLEMENTATION 4.6. Generatio
Page 68 and 69: 4. AN IMPLEMENTATION 4.7. Generic t
Page 71 and 72: 5 Framework Evaluation Chapter 3 pr
Page 73 and 74: 5. FRAMEWORK EVALUATION 5.2. Operat
Page 83: 5. FRAMEWORK EVALUATION 5.3. Perfor
Page 88 and 89: 6. INTEGRATION WITH VIRTU 6.2. VIRT
Page 94 and 95: 6. INTEGRATION WITH VIRTU 6.4. SmAR
Page 96 and 97: 6. INTEGRATION WITH VIRTU 6.4. SmAR
Page 98 and 99: 6. INTEGRATION WITH VIRTU 6.5. Summ
Page 100 and 101: 7. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK 7.1.
Page 103 and 104: A.1 OGC sequence diagram A Appendix
Page 105 and 106: B.1 MySQL Configuration file # # Th
Page 107 and 108: B. APPENDIX - EVALUATION B.1. MySQL
Page 109 and 110: B. APPENDIX - EVALUATION B.2. Apach
Page 135 and 136:
B. APPENDIX - EVALUATION B.2. Apach
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
B. APPENDIX - EVALUATION B.3. Eclip
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
B. APPENDIX - EVALUATION B.4. Perfo
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Bibliography [Ama09] Amazon. Amazon
Page 181:
BIBLIOGRAPHY [Sol09a] Evolve Space
show all

Dissertaç ˜ao de Mestrado Mestrado em Engenharia Informática Jo ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?