Re: [abc] oopsla outline

Hi Guys,

I have just finished fighting a big fire - tomorrow is a day
completely clear of Dean stuff - what is best for me to do?

Cheers, Laurie

+-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Laurie Hendren --- laurie.hendren@mcgill.ca
| Associate Dean (Academic), Faculty of Science,
| Dawson Hall, McGill University, 853 Sherbrooke St W,
| Montreal QC H3A 2T6 Canada, 514-398-7179, fax 514-398-1774
+----------------------------------------------------------------
| For contact and home page info as Professor, Computer Science:
| http://www.sable.mcgill.ca/~hendren --- hendren@cs.mcgill.ca
| Research: http://www.sable.mcgill.ca http://aspectbench.org
+----------------------------------------------------------------

On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, Pavel Avgustinov wrote:

> Oege de Moor wrote:
>
> > 3. Experiments
>
> I've committed some more stuff into experiments.tex. More numbers for
> figure 7, and preliminary graphs for JHotDraw (Oege, let me know if
> those weren't the styles of graph you were expecting).
>
> The image quality isn't brilliant at the moment, but I don't want to
> play with it until we've finalised the graphs; there's a .ods document
> in Figures/ which contains the graphs if you're interested.
> Alternatively, looking at the eps files should be more legible than
> looking at tex's output.
>
> A word about the PQL variations: PQL1 is the 'obvious' PQL pattern, PQL2
> is the 'obvious' pattern, except that it prohibits a call_next between
> the update_source and final call_next events, i.e. it's
>
> create_enum
> update_source
> ~call_next
> call_next
>
> This variation is by Julian; the point is that with the negated event,
> many partial matches could be thrown away that otherwise would have to
> be kept around. The numbers of course suggest that PQL doesn't make use
> of that fact.
>
> PQLFull is PQL2, except the 'update_source' is specified as a full
> disjunction of pattern names (i.e. "ds.remove(_) | ds.removeAll() |
> ..."), where PQL2 uses name patterns (i.e. "ds.remove*(...) | ..."). I'm
> not sure if it's worth including this. The point is that PQL takes a
> *lot* more time and memory if you spell out the disjunction in full,
> presumably because it ends up creating a bigger automaton. Perhaps a
> point in favour of trying to reduce automaton size?
>
> There's another bit of bad PQL-related news. Julian spent yesterday and
> today trying to get DBPooling to work; it seems like it isn't going to
> happen, due to bugs in PQL which we don't feel we have the time to track
> down. If anyone is at a loss for what to do, by all means ask me or
> Julian about this. It's of course a shame that there's only three
> benchmarks where we can compare to PQL (JHotDraw, AJHotDraw and
> Jigsaw/LocalUL), but that can't be helped.
>
> Eric is currently gathering numbers for hashcode/aprove, and I'm hoping
> to check in numbers for hashcode/weka and jigsaw/lor by tomorrow
> morning. Then it's time to flesh out the paper!
>
> - P
>
>
>
Received on Thu Mar 09 20:16:02 2006