On Aug 9, 2007, at 19:00, Andreas L Delmelle wrote:
On Aug 8, 2007, at 08:30, Manuel Mall wrote:
Not quite my point. When you put your private implementation of an
HashMap forward there were concerns raised about this as hard to
maintain and not really required. Now we have a custom implementation
of a concurrent hash map. Same concerns apply IMO.
Concerns as Simple and Stupid as the cache IMO.
Before anyone (Manuel or Vincent, who opposed the idea of the IntMap
in the first place) feels offended, let me clarify:
Why did you think I posted a proposal first, this time?
I do understand the concerns, and I agreed for the IntMap, since
ultimately it was only used for a very small portion of FOP. The
PropertyCache on the other hand, is a relatively crucial component as
it heavily used (indirectly by the PropertyParser, for instance). As
such, IMO, the added maintenance here is peanuts compared to the
speed and memory benefits --provided that there is a heavy,
noticeable performance penalty in real-time, and not only in the
simulations I did.
That said, I did not read a veto anywhere... :o)