http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1801804/diff/1/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/shell/DispatchClassInfo.java
File core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/shell/DispatchClassInfo.java (right):

http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1801804/diff/1/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/shell/DispatchClassInfo.java#newcode86
core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/shell/DispatchClassInfo.java:86: Integer id
= memberIdByMember.get(m);
Is this a very heavily used function and/or does memberBy[Member]Id get
very large normally?  If not, would it be simpler to just do:

  int id = memberById.indexOf(m);
  if (id == -1) {
    id = memberById.size();
    memberById.add(m);
  }
  memberIdByName.put(StringInterner.get().intern(name), id);

http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1801804/diff/1/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/shell/DispatchClassInfo.java#newcode90
core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/shell/DispatchClassInfo.java:90:
memberIdByName.put(StringInterner.get().intern(name), id);
I know this was preexisting practice, but why are we interning strings
here?  It doesn't seem to serve any purpose except to use use
interned-strings storage.

http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1801804/diff/1/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/shell/DispatchClassInfo.java#newcode237
core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/shell/DispatchClassInfo.java:237:
memberByMemberId = new HashMap<Integer, Member>(32767);
Why 32767?  Won't it size up appropriately, or will the table very
frequently have 32767 members?

http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1801804/

--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors

Reply via email to