<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Recent changes to feature-requests</title><link>https://sourceforge.net/p/cache4j/feature-requests/</link><description>Recent changes to feature-requests</description><atom:link href="https://sourceforge.net/p/cache4j/feature-requests/feed.rss" rel="self"/><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Sun, 07 Dec 2008 04:49:33 -0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://sourceforge.net/p/cache4j/feature-requests/feed.rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Clarify performance tester output</title><link>https://sourceforge.net/p/cache4j/feature-requests/1/</link><description>&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;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Anonymous</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 07 Dec 2008 04:49:33 -0000</pubDate><guid>https://sourceforge.neta0f70f44073320e2e36cd1f3e8cb03be9a037054</guid></item></channel></rss>