----- Original Message -----
From: "James Strachan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 12:56 AM
Subject: Re: [COLLECTIONS] [VOTE] Release Collections 2.0
> [snip]
>
> I just thought Morgan was thinking of removing the reflection code and
just
> using Object[] instead and just wanted to explain why the reflection was
> needed - though I think I got the wrong end of the stick and Morgan was
> really just talking about tuning the Object[] use case while still
> supporting reflection for non-Object[] types.
>
> Sorry for the confusion everyone...
>
No problem. I already patched ArrayIterator.next(), but I decided not to
apply it:
// don't use reflection for Object arrays
if (array instanceof Object[]) {
return ((Object[]) array)[index++];
}
// use reflection for primitive arrays
return Array.get( array, index++ );
It works fine, but it seems like premature optimization now. I can't tell
for sure (Array.get(Object,int) is a native method), but surely the
Collections method performs the same optimization internally. Anything else
seems silly.
- Morgan
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
