On 2010-12-13, Antoine Levy-Lambert wrote: > Hi,
> I got a private email asking me to apply the patch suggested by > *Bug 50200* <https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50200> - [1] > VectorSet kills the performance of DirectoryScanner > The code looks good and I am wondering why we have the current implementation. > Stefan ? I remember I looked at the patch a few weeks ago but ran out of time back then. The reason I didn't commit it right away is that at first glance it seems to make assumptions about the base class's implementation that may or may not be true. At first first I thought that if Vector#add(Object) delegates to Vector#add(int,Object) the suggested implementation would lead to an infinite loop. Now I see this is not true because the set will contain the object on the second invocation of doAdd - but this also means if the base class's add does indeed delegate the way I described then the object is not going to be added to the Vector at all. So all in all I still feel the patch relies on undocumented details of Vector's implementation and am not I sure when I'll find time to verify or falsify that feeling. It may be easier to avoid the arraycopy for the index==size() case without invoking any base methods anyway. I'll comment on the bug report directly so you don't have to relay between the bug reporter and this list. Stefan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ant.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ant.apache.org
