Rhett, Jeremias,

I was hoping there might be a little more detailed discussion here. I have no experience of WeakHashMaps or the various Reference objects, but I have been thinking about using Reference objects, rather than direct references, to point to the Nodes in my Tree, with the idea that at least the first iteration in a cache/retrieve cycle on a subtree could be handled transparently within the Tree.


Rhett Aultman wrote:
Mostly it was for caching benefits.  As I said, though, I haven't read enough code to know.  I just thought I'd throw it out as a possibile way to save on memory usage when FOP processes large documents.  *shrug* ;)

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremias Maerki [mailto:dev.jeremias@;greenmail.ch]

For caching and if done correctly, yes, there could be benefits.
WeakReferences can be used if you have objects you want to keep but
you're not angry when they get swept away by the GC. Good for keeping
images and fonts in memory, but for overall FOP I don't see any use case.
Or can anyone think of another one?

On 06.11.2002 18:16:47 Rhett Aultman wrote:

You mentioned HashMaps briefly here.  I suppose I could try auditing the
code and answering my own question here, but I have very little free
time in general. (Hopefully, I'll have more free time after
Saturday...I've spent a lot of time for weeks studying for the GRE). So,
I'll just ask- has anyone considered looking into the potential memory
benefits of using WeakHashMaps instead of HashMaps?

Peter B. West  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://www.powerup.com.au/~pbwest/
"Lord, to whom shall we go?"

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

Reply via email to