You're right actually, putting them into a single method would make profiling harder as it wouldn't be that obvious to see the benefits your changes could have in the put area, or get area...etc. If we added that put loop at the beginning of get and remove methods, it'd distort the profiling results of that tests, wouldn't they? I'm rolling back on my initial thoughts actually. We could still control the flow implementing the "public static Test suite()" method and leave the tests independent to make profiling easier which is their objective. I'll change the remove on tear down to evict to still benefit from the original puts. Galder Zamarreño Sr. Software Maintenance Engineer JBoss, a division of Red Hat IT executives: Red Hat still #1 for value http://www.redhat.com/promo/vendor/ -----Original Message----- From: Manik Surtani [mailto:manik@jboss.org] Sent: 06 December 2006 12:25 To: Galder Zamarreno Cc: jbosscache-dev(a)lists.jboss.org Subject: Re: [jbosscache-dev] Restructuring o.j.c.l.JDBCCacheLoaderPerfTest, thoughts? On 6 Dec 2006, at 10:32, Galder Zamarreno wrote: Yes, something moving to TestNG would help with someday - finer grained control over test setup and teardown structures as well as the relationships between tests. Keep in mind though, the purpose of this test is not like other unit, stress or perf tests. It does not exercise functionality nor look for bugs/leaks over time, nor measure any meaningful benchmarks. It is simply an exercise to micro-bench individual operations so that, while tuning the cacheloader code, you can measure the effect of your enhancements. So this really should be treated more as a tuning tool than anything else (and probably should be excluded from the cruise control test suite as it is meaningless when run in CC) And treating it as such a tool, the put, get and remove test methods should be treated separately IMO. Moving them into a single method may make profiling a bit hard. I see your point about setting up the cache with proper data for get and remove tests though; perhaps include a put loop at the start of get and remove to init the cache first?