Perhaps my memory is failing but haven't you raised this topic before? What was the outcome back then?
I think if you're planning to rehash old topics then it's good to call out the previous discussions that have been had to give a full context. While I'm not at all suggesting you are doing this, it is entirely possible for someone with an agenda to keep raising old topics as new ones until the desired response is received from the community, later on when someone complains you can just say "but I discussed it first!" even if the idea had been rejected in several previous discussions. Again, I'm not suggesting you're doing this, just using it as an example of why it's important to disclose previous discussions when raising them anew. Regards Scott On 30/05/2012, at 11:24 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: > I am reposting this thread with a different subject to make sure everyone > interested has a chance to comment. > > To summarize (and to make sure we are all on the same page): > > 1. Javolution was added to the project in the JDK 1.4 days. David Jones ran > some performance tests that demonstrated a performance boost when using > Javolution Fast* classes instead of java.util.* classes. > 2. Javolution acheived this performance boost by eliminating some garbage > collection. The Fast* classes use object pools - where objects are returned > to the pool when they are unused instead of being garbage collected. > 3. JDK 1.5 introduced an improved garbage collector that eliminated the long > pauses caused by previous garbage collectors. Also, it introduced the > java.util.concurrent package - which is functionally similar to Javolution's > concurrency. When OFBiz switched to the JDK 1.5 requirement, the need for > Javolution was eliminated - but it was kept in the project anyway. > 4. No performance tests have been executed recently to see what kind of > impact removing Javolution will have. > 5. In the attached thread I recommend removing Javolution from object fields > that are effectively static (either declared static or a field of an object > that is cached indefinitely), because the pooled object is never returned to > the pool - defeating the purpose of the library. > 6. In the attached thread Adam suggests removing Javolution entirely. > > -Adrian > > > On 5/27/2012 9:56 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: >> On 5/27/2012 5:56 PM, Adam Heath wrote: >>> On 05/27/2012 07:09 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>>> From: "Adrian Crum" <adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com> >>>>> FYI, in the Mini-language overhaul I interned the Element tag name >>>>> Strings. >>>> >>>> Yes, that's really a good improvment! Things are much more clear now. >>>> It's only in minilang though (I mean not in widgets actions yet), right? >>>> >>>>> Another thing to discuss is the proper use of Javolution and/or >>>>> whether we still need it. >>>> >>>> Yes, I also wondered about that last week when willing to cast to a >>>> TreeMap. >>>> The fact that it's a one man project and will maybe less and less >>>> supported http://javolution.org/#HISTORY is not yet an issue but could be >>> >>> I personally see no need for javolution. It's non-standard >>> concurrency(java.util.concurrent). It does it's own memory allocation, >>> which prevents escape-analysis from working(allocating memory on the stack >>> instead of the heap). >>> >> >> In the Mini-language overhaul I removed Javolution classes from model fields >> - since the models could be kept in memory (cached) indefinitely (resulting >> in borrowed objects that are never returned to the pool). I kept Javolution >> in the script execution path - which is the proper use from my perspective. >> I know you ran into issues with FastMap previously, but I don't remember the >> details. >> >> If there are no objections, I can remove Javolution from Mini-language >> entirely. >> >> -Adrian >>
