On Thursday, August 14, 2003, at 11:59 pm, Alex Blewitt wrote:
So the problem is still going to exist, albeit a factor slower since it's going through this caching log :-/
Agree, that is what caching is all about.
Sorry, my point was that I expected your caching code to slow it down; IMHO it will run faster without it. Caching a boolean value is an incredibly small factor of performance boost, and you've got an extra method call in your chain. When I was playing around with benchmarks, the method call was the expensive bit, not the boolean value access.
Alex - why don't you write a little performance benchmark test & submit it then we can put this matter to an end.
James ------- http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
