Sylvain Wallez wrote: > > Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > > >Sylvain Wallez wrote: > > > > > >>The performance problem is that among all implementations of > Source that > >>I know of (URLSource, FileSource, SlideSource, BlobSource, XMLDBSource, > >>SitemapSource and CVSSource), only one actually needs to be disposed > >>(SitemapSource). > >> > >>So having a isSelectable()-select()-release() cycle to call a > >>factory.release() that does nothing most of the time seems CPU > >>waste to me. > >> > >>Now I agree that theoretically releasing is the factory's job. So, in > >>order to lower my performance fears, what about removing the > >>isSelectable() call in SourceResolverImpl.release() ? It would > remove an > >>unnecessary search in the ServiceSelector HashMaps, considering also > >>that the select() that follows this isSelectable() is surrounded by a > >>try/catch. > >> > >> > >> > >Wow, entering twilight zone...believe it or not, I just thought of this > >yesterday evening when I tried to think about some general performance > >improvements. > >Actually, I wasn't sure about it, because if we are honest, it's a hack. > > > > Why is it a hack ? Calling isSelectable() is only of real use if the > probability for it to return false is important and if you can make some > corrective actions in that case. > Ok, hack is perhaps a too hard formulated. Anyway, I think we can live with it and change it.
> >And throwing/catching exceptions is also a little bit time consuming. > >But as a (better?) solution I would like to make a factory for the > >URLSource as well - so all sources are handled by a factory and the > >select() call will always return a factory - and this will avoid > >the isSelectable() call. > >What do you think about this? > > > > Twilight zone again ;-) > I wanted to raise this issue just after we finished with that one, > because it seemed to me unclean for URLSource to be managed directly by > the SourceResolver and not through a factory. > > >Ah, btw you're right that the Source object should return a Collection > >instead of an Iterator for the children - I will fix that, too, asap. > > > > Cool. But I'm still not that happy with these methods being on Source > itself. What about TraversableSource or HierarchicalSource (I have this > last one ready on my PC with collections) ? > I really don't like all these instanceof tests and I think that a source can have children is very common. So if you deal with sources you always end up with a test if this source contains children or not. I think this test is much more cleaner/nicer/whatever if I can directly query the source. An instanceof test for this reason is not appropriate. Carsten --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
