igor.vaynberg wrote: > > hmm, right > > so you are running an upwards of 100K reflection lookups for the first > test, and upwards of 300K lookups in the second test. and you want > this to be performant? > No. But I do want my sorts to run as efficiently as possible.
igor.vaynberg wrote: > > sorry, but there are much better ways to sort data that do not involve > reflection. > It's very easy to say this, but the way Wicket is designed, we use property names all over the place, so this forces us to use reflection when we sort. ----- There are 10 kinds of people: Those who know binary and those who don't. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/PropertyResolver-redesign-tp16495644p17068896.html Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
