On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 4:25 PM, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, your suggestion is better.
> Not only cleaner, but also more performant: in the first case the cpu will
> speculatively execute both branches. One of them will fail and that
> execution pipeline will be discarded. Not a big deal, happens all the time,
> and branch prediction is very good these days, but if the conditional can
> be avoided, the cpu can continue to make progress. If you can choose,
> prefer math to branching code.
>
Done. In Git master.
Gary
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 2016/06/18, at 4:50, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Should this:
>
> private int getMinCount(final Strategy strategy) {
> if (Strategy.DROP == strategy) {
> return 0;
> } else { // Strategy.RETAIN
> return 1;
> }
> }
>
> be:
>
> private int getMinCount(final Strategy strategy) {
> return strategy.getMinCount();
> }
>
> ?
>
> Seems more OO to me.
>
> Gary
>
> --
> E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org
> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>
>
--
E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
