[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/THRIFT-1854?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14268026#comment-14268026
]
Vitali Lovich commented on THRIFT-1854:
---------------------------------------
I agree completely with you. My point was that the current mechanism is
insufficient: there is no way to implement Trove at the moment with the current
annotation mechanism. Given that sorted_containers are in already & they
actually *could* be implemented via annotations, do you have an objection to
putting in trove until a more generic mechanism is implemented? In fact, the
trove implementation could inform the requirements of a more generic solution:
it'll point out what the injection points need to be.
With respect to your float example, you mean in-memory storage is cut in half,
right? Transfer size should be unaffected since thrift only supports
transporting doubles.
> trove support for lists of primitives
> -------------------------------------
>
> Key: THRIFT-1854
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/THRIFT-1854
> Project: Thrift
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: Java - Compiler
> Reporter: Vitali Lovich
> Attachments:
> 0001-Add-support-for-trove-option-to-Java-generator.patch,
> 0002-adding-support-to-use-Trove-lists-instead-of-native-.patch,
> 0003-Implement-trove-support-for-sets.patch,
> 0004-Implement-trove-support-for-maps.patch
>
>
> When dealing with large collections of primitive types, there can be
> significant memory (i.e. using arrays of objects instead of arrays of
> primitives) & runtime overhead (autoboxing/unboxing) using the default
> collections. Utilizing trove can significantly improve things. ideally
> support would be added for sets & maps, but as a first pass lists would be
> great.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
