The big advantage that the StringBuffer has is that it's defined in the java.lang package. As a result, it has access to package private members of the String class. Calling toString on StringBuffer does not allocate a copy of the characters, but rather passes the reference to it's char[]. With any FastStringBuffer class, a copy will be created. This will likely hurt performance much more than removing synchronization.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Feldhacker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 08:30 P Subject: [lang] FastStringBuffer? > Maybe I'm missing something, or maybe this has been discussed before, but... > > Is there a replacement for StringBuffer someplace, perhaps a > "FastStringBuffer" class? > > I only ask because StringBuffers are used everywhere, even internally by the > JVM. However, all of the methods on the StringBuffer class are > synchronized. In my experience (and in looking through most of the lang > code), 99% of the time StringBuffer is only used as a method variable to > compose a message String; therefore, it is not possible for multiple threads > to access the same StringBuffer. So, why not eliminate the synchronized > method calls and increase performance? > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
