On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 11:03 AM, Stefan Haustein<[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 3:50 PM, Lex Spoon <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 7:22 PM, Bruce Johnson<[email protected]> wrote: >> > Please also look at the compiled JS. I think the less restrictive bound >> > will >> > cause the compiler to generate worse code (e.g. dynamic casts in some or >> > all >> > contexts) which would make it a non-starter. >> >> Okay, the law has been laid. >> >> Stefan, how about cloning the class under a new name? > > Would inheriting the old class (constrained to <T extends JavaScriptObject>) > from the copy make the performance concerns go away?
That wouldn't change things. The same question would arise, and presumably we're not allowed to change this code before someone does the evidence gathering in question. > Otherwise, I'd probably > prefer to avoid additional redundancy and just use ArrayList....? I though the point was to get rid of JRE collections? Anyway, the collection in question is used as a queue. I would hate to see its performance get worse when there' -Lex > >> >> John and Ray, the motivation is in Stefan's first message. He wants >> to remove AsyncFragmentLoader's use of the heavy LinkedList class. >> >> Bob, it's a good point about API breakage. There were some code >> searches earlier, and no instances could be found where someone's code >> would be broken. >> >> -Lex >> >> > > > > -- > Stefan Haustein > Google UK Limited > > Registered Office: Belgrave House, 76 Buckingham Palace Road, London SW1W > 9TQ; Registered in England Number: 3977902 > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
