> At 03:20 PM 6/27/2002 +0200, Radim Tlusty wrote: > >But the following description is misleading: > > > >> It used to be overhead back in the old days before > >> jar files (circa 95-97). imports used to cause directory > >> lookups, which were slow. > > Why is this misleading? This was true back then. > > >> With jar files (that have a manifest of course), there > >> shouldn't be a difference. > > > >There is no relation between imports and storage of class files. > > ??? I'm not sure how your inference engine works. > Who said there was a relationship?
YOU. You said, that there was overhead in "old days" before JAR files and today with JAR files with manifest there should not be difference between "import java.util.*" and "import java.util.Vector". This for me means, that you see relation between storage of classes and "import style" in source code. But this is misleading. There is of course difference in speed with classes stored in JAR files or standalone, but in loading time of class and not because of imports, as you said (cite from your statement: "imports used to cause directory lookups, which were slow"). Radim > > Frank G. > > _______________________________________________ > Advanced-swing mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://eos.dk/mailman/listinfo/advanced-swing > _______________________________________________ Advanced-swing mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://eos.dk/mailman/listinfo/advanced-swing
