<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xml:lang="en" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><title>Recent changes to feature-requests</title><link href="https://sourceforge.net/p/cache4j/feature-requests/" rel="alternate"/><link href="https://sourceforge.net/p/cache4j/feature-requests/feed.atom" rel="self"/><id>https://sourceforge.net/p/cache4j/feature-requests/</id><updated>2008-12-07T04:49:33Z</updated><subtitle>Recent changes to feature-requests</subtitle><entry><title>Clarify performance tester output</title><link href="https://sourceforge.net/p/cache4j/feature-requests/1/" rel="alternate"/><published>2008-12-07T04:49:33Z</published><updated>2008-12-07T04:49:33Z</updated><author><name>Anonymous</name><uri>https://sourceforge.net/u/userid-None/</uri></author><id>https://sourceforge.neta0f70f44073320e2e36cd1f3e8cb03be9a037054</id><summary type="html">&lt;div class="markdown_content"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Suggestion for cache4j performance tester output:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Please clarify if large numbers are good or bad.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The output does not say if the output is a measure of time per operation (smaller is faster) or a measure of operations per time interval (larger is faster).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Otherwise, nice job!&lt;br /&gt;
-Remko Popma&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary></entry></feed>