Hi Ivan, The first version looks good.
I think this is desirable even if it is a tiny bit slower. cheers /Joel On 4 aug 2014, at 13:27, Ivan Gerasimov <ivan.gerasi...@oracle.com> wrote: > Hi Martin! > > Sorry for the pause, I had to take a break. > > Thank you for your StringJoiner rework! > I created a bug to track it: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8054221 > > With your implementation of StringJoiner, the first version of > Modifier.toString() [1] became (almost) as fast as original, and a bit > clearer. > > [1] http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~igerasim/8051382/0/webrev/ > > Will you approve the change to Modifier.toString? > > Sincerely your, > Ivan > > > On 19.07.2014 19:58, Martin Buchholz wrote: >> StringJoiner seems written in a style suitable for an application, not in a >> low-level performance-oriented style suitable for a JDK core library. But >> we can fix that. >> >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~martin/webrevs/openjdk9/StringJoiner-optimization/ >> >> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Emartin/webrevs/openjdk9/StringJoiner-optimization/> >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 6:18 PM, Ivan Gerasimov <ivan.gerasi...@oracle.com >> <mailto:ivan.gerasi...@oracle.com>> wrote: >> >> >> On 19.07.2014 3:07, Martin Buchholz wrote: >> >> >> I took a quick look at StringJoiner. It looks to me like this >> won't be an optimization, because StringJoiner uses >> StringBuilder internally, and will actually perform more total >> operations. >> >> >> Unfortunately this is true. >> Microbenchmarking shows that StringJoiner makes the things 30% >> slower, which is sad. >> >> Then I propose another simple patch giving +15% to the speed: >> >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~igerasim/8051382/1/webrev/ >> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Eigerasim/8051382/1/webrev/> >> >> Sincerely yours, >> Inan >> >> >
