Whoa, dude! Get a grip. If you don't trust the Google engineers to fix things, not reporting them seems like a sure solution, right?
And I didn't say you were doing it wrong. You just cut what I said up into little pieces so you could pick at it. I gave reasons why you were doing it right in this case. You kind of tend to fly off the handle sometimes. I guess it's more fun to be angry than to communicate. And theory matters -- so does practice. If something works today, and doesn't work tomorrow, because you ignore the theory, then hey, it's your bug. If you rely on theory, and ignore that in practice it doesn't behave that way -- well, it may not be your bug, but it's still your bug. So I've got no problem with your code in this instance. I don't care if you understood what I wrote about it, because I didn't write it for your benefit anyway. Have a nice day. On Mar 3, 4:43 pm, Greg Donald <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 6:21 PM, Bob Kerns <[email protected]> wrote: > > ?? If you have verified this, please report it as a bug. > > To who? The same Google engineers that can't fix my Marketplace stats > since December? > > http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Android+Market/thread?tid=4c575... > > I have zero faith in these people fixing anything except what interests them. > > > The way GC works, GC work should be triggered by any allocation that > > needs more memory (incremental algorithms trigger some amount of GC > > work on each allocation, non-incremental algorithms do ALL the work in > > this situation). The allocation should BLOCK if completing GC work in > > progress on another thread would possibly allow it to succeed. If it > > throws an OOM exception, it should be already determined that a > > System.gc() won't help. > > It works fine for me. > > > BTW, in theory at least, > > Who in the hell cares about theory man? This isn't academia, this is > real life, with money at stake. > > > you should be catching OutOfMemoryError, not > > Hehe.. So now I'm doing it wrong? I don't care what the exception > is, I just need it to do some GC and try again. My code does exactly > that, as simple as I can think to do it. Not changing it anytime > soon. > > > Exception. I can see using Exception here, in case lower-level code > > mishandles the situation, and ends up, say, throwing a > > NullPointerException instead -- something I've seen happen in some > > environments. I'm just pointing out that it's usually a poor practice > > for the sake of new Java programmers reading this... > > Who cares, my code works. > > > This > > construction will obscure other possible problems, such as an invalid > > resource ID, etc. > > Well, there's no chance of that since I did in fact use a valid > resource id. Again, my try/catch isn't for that, it's for a retry. > > -- > Greg Donald > destiney.com | gregdonald.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en
