Yes .. right now problem is it is HashMap, but there are no synchornization as well. Please correct me if I am missing something. Thanks Srinath
On 6/11/07, Ajith Ranabahu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
IIRC the flip side of the same argument was brought as a reason. Hashtables are slower than hashmaps due to the synching. In how many places do we have to synch if we just use the map ? if there are many I suggest we use the hashtable. However if there are only one or two place where we have to sync then I suggest we keep the maps for performance reasons. Ajith On 6/11/07, Deepal Jayasinghe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > +1, > then we do not need to add sync block in our code , since hashtable does > that for us. > > Thanks > Deepal > > Did we had a reason to use HashMaps instead of Hashtables?, which I > > belive is the correct approach. Please Comment > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AXIS2-2794 > > > > Thanks > > Srinath > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Ajith Ranabahu --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- ============================ Srinath Perera: Indiana University, Bloomington http://www.cs.indiana.edu/~hperera/ http://www.bloglines.com/blog/hemapani --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
