[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPENJPA-160?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12476234
]
Patrick Linskey commented on OPENJPA-160:
-----------------------------------------
> Patrick - I'll pull your patch and we'll test it out here today on the
> benchmark.
Cool -- I'm looking forward to seeing the results.
> My only question is whether this pattern exists anywhere else or only in
> ObjectValue. That might argue for making InstanceFactory a more general
> interface instead of being a member of ObjectValue.
I thought about that, and decided to just keep it in ObjectValue until we
discover the need for it elsewhere.
> As you've coded it, each instance of ObjectValue gets its own Map. Does a
> given instance need more than one factory? It could just be stored as a
> member instead of a Map.
>
> On the other hand, if the Map is static, it should probably be a Concurrent
> Map
> and account for garbage collecting undeployed classes.
I put a Map in place to get around any ClassLoader issues. In the common case,
it shouldn't be an issue, since all the built-in OpenJPA classes will
presumably be in the same classloader as the ObjectValue class. But the
existing code handled more complex ClassLoader situations, so I figured I'd
preserve that feature.
The set-up happens during BrokerFactory initialization, so there is no real
need to make it static. Making it static might speed things up between multiple
BrokerFactories, but I like having different BrokerFactories be independent.
> Reuse BrokerImpl objects
> ------------------------
>
> Key: OPENJPA-160
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPENJPA-160
> Project: OpenJPA
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Reporter: Michael Dick
> Attachments: openjpa-160-patch.txt, perf2.jpg, perf3.jpg
>
>
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
