Ted, I had much the same thoughts while driving to the grocery store after sending that message.
Death to the class, and I'll clean up the implementation of the users of the resize business. --benson On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Ted Dunning <[email protected]> wrote: > I take it that the point of this code is to allow filling an ArrayList with > null values efficiently. This might sometimes be useful, I suppose. > > It sounds like you are saying that the virtue of the ObjectArrayList is that > we own it and can make this resizing method efficient. I don't see any > advantage of that strategy versus forking some other implementation or even > starting a new implementation from scratch. I am also not clear on the > virtues of this resizing in general. In particular, the idiom > > if (l.size() > size) l.sublist(size, l.size() - size).clear() > > seems a better way to clear a bunch of values. Collections.fill() applied > to a sublist should be good as well. > > If you just need to fill in an ArrayList quickly to a desired size, then > addAll from a static list of nulls could be a bit faster. Is speed really > important here, though? > > As a side note, the tests in your code appear to be backwards. > > On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Benson Margulies > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Colt brought us 'ObjectArrayList'. You might ask, what advantage does >> it have over ArrayList<T>? >> >> Well, I just found myself writing the following to use ArrayList<T> in >> the xxxObjectHashMap set. I could rework ObjectArrayList to be a >> subclass of ArrayList that provided this efficiently, instead of my >> current plan to throw it out altogether once I've got other things >> cleaned up. Thoughts? >> >> private void resizeArrayList(ArrayList<T> l, int size) { >> while (size < l.size()) { >> l.add(null); >> } >> while(size > l.size()) { >> l.remove(l.size()-1); >> } >> } >> > > > > -- > Ted Dunning, CTO > DeepDyve >
