I agree with Arved. I think it's a small change with a reasonable chance
of improving things a bit.
 
On 13.08.2002 03:09:52 Arved Sandstrom wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Oleg Tkachenko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: August 12, 2002 8:16 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: just a thought
> >
> > It's probably not too late to consider some trivial optimization of fo
> > tree in redesign code. In a typical fo document probably about 30% of
> > elements have no children or have only one child (text node usually), so
> > instead of eager
> > protected ArrayList children = new ArrayList();
> > in FObj.java we can consider lazy polymorphic member
> > protected Object children = null;
> > 1) For no chidren case it remains to be null.
> > 2) For 1 child case it is FONode object.
> > 3) For children case it is ArrayList.
> > This means some additional logic must be implmented at addChild() and
> > getChildren() methods.
> >
> > Any thoughts?
> 
> Seems reasonable to me, Oleg. The default constructor for ArrayList creates
> an array of 10 Objects. An inexpensive check for null in addChild() is
> unlikely to cost more, even over many children, especially averaged over an
> entire document.
> 
> Case 2 might be overkill, unless one can make the case that single children
> are frequent enough to make this extra logic worthwhile. Comments?
> 
> Regards,
> Arved


Jeremias Maerki


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to