Note that looking up classes whose tag name == the class name is looking up the class name in a hash named `global`.
A switch statement is just syntactic sugar for an if/else cascade so it is O(n). If you have a _really_ smart compiler, it _might_ replace a large switch with b-tree or a hash lookup. On the other hand, unless you have really botched your hash implementation, it should be O(1). I'd also go with the hashmap because it avoids duplication -- if a new tag/class mapping gets invented, you only have to fix one place. [That leaves open why we have the map at all.] On 2006-09-06, at 21:24 EDT, Benjamin Shine wrote: > > Performance. ConstructorMap is about four times longer than the list > that I'm using, with the delta being things that don't make sense to > be styled with CSS. > > Maybe my idea of performance is wrong, though -- I'll measure which > is faster, the switch statement or hashing into the ConstructorMap. > > -ben > > On Sep 6, 2006, at 5:44 PM, Jim Grandy wrote: > >> Why not simply use ConstructorMap in WEB-INF/lps/lfc/glue/ >> LaszloInitiator.as? _______________________________________________ Laszlo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.openlaszlo.org/mailman/listinfo/laszlo-dev
