I believe clean may be ok, unless there's a ton of WeakReferences getting collected. clean repeatedly polls the ReferenceQueue for any collected references, removing them from ObjectSpace. According to JavaDocs and the 1.5
ReferenceQueue implementation, each poll should just pull the 'head' item o
At 11:50 2006-06-02, you wrote:
>On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 09:22:29 +0200, Ola Bini wrote:
> > Regardig the ObjectSpace-implementation, I would recommend you to move the
> > cleanup call to ObjectSpace#iterator() ... I think that's where most of
> the
> > performance go through the roof.
> > And it's no
On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 09:22:29 +0200, Ola Bini wrote:
> Regardig the ObjectSpace-implementation, I would recommend you to move the
> cleanup call to ObjectSpace#iterator() ... I think that's where most of the
> performance go through the roof.
> And it's not like those WeakReferences are a problem.
Hi,
Regardig the ObjectSpace-implementation, I would recommend you to move the
cleanup call to ObjectSpace#iterator() ... I think that's where most of the
performance go through the roof.
And it's not like those WeakReferences are a problem...
/O
At 07:54 2006-06-02, you wrote:
>Scratch that t
FYI, the ObjectSpace performance hit appears to come from its use of a synchronized Set. If I modify it to use an unsynchronized Set, the numbers approach those when I have it completely disabled. Who says synchronization costs nothing?
The ObjectSpace thing is particularly interesting since it wou
Scratch that thing about synchronization...I think my numbers got mixed up. It's still slow with an unsynchronized Set.On 6/2/06, Charles O Nutter <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:FYI, the ObjectSpace performance hit appears to come from its use of a synchronized Set. If I modify it to use an unsynchroni
