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]
