On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Philip Martin <[email protected]> wrote: > Mark Phippard <[email protected]> writes: > >> I think Synchronized is a better solution, but will not object if you >> want to make the change. > > I'm a novice as far as Java is concerned, I don't know which style is > preferred.
This is a decent resource that shows the different options: http://www.javacodegeeks.com/2010/07/java-best-practices-dateformat-in.html We could adopt the ThreadLocal option but as you point out this code is not used a lot. So it seems like the simpler approach is better. Besides the fact that the benchmarks that use multiple threads show that Synchronized is faster than creating a new object, the reason I like it is that it calls out the fact that there is a thread safety issue for people to be aware of. If we implemented the other approach, we could obviously add comments explaining why, but I think it would still be prone to someone "optimizing" the code back to the current state. If someone really wants to max out the performance we could go the ThreadLocal route. I think we should have more tests of this class if we do that, since the code becomes more complicated. I did not want to commit to writing those. Anyway, as I said, based on the research you did (thanks!) I now realize I can fix the problem in Subclipse where we were probably "abusing" our usage of this class. The change I committed is still a valid improvement, I just do not think there is a lot of reason to optimize this any further. -- Thanks Mark Phippard http://markphip.blogspot.com/
