I have been surprised looking at how Mapper and Record frameworks use object of anonymous classes extending (Mapped)Field to represent attributes. This provide a powerful mechanisms to incorporate in Field traits and classes, services for persistency and representation. Based on this I am trying to subclass Record in order to implement persistency using XML files and keeping complex models (models with many connection between different objects) in memory. I made previous experience in designing such a service trying to avoid the use of reflection for efficiency reasons, but I finished with a generative approach, I am not completely satisfied (different tools for model design and code generation). Here it comes Scala and its brilliant use in Lift, opening up new opportunities. Nevertheless before going on I am concerned about implementation effciency and specifically about memory consumption, in comparison to a more conservative approach in representing attributes as simple var or val. As far as I understood the pattern lead to many anonymous classes, each representing a field in a record. What is the impact of this approach on memory consumption? Is field access time negatively affected? Thanks for suggestions on this topic.
Regards beppe --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lift" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
