[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPENNLP-364?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Aliaksandr Autayeu updated OPENNLP-364:
---------------------------------------
Attachment: 0004-stringbuffer-to-stringbuilder.patch
> Use StringBuilder instead of StringBuffer
> -----------------------------------------
>
> Key: OPENNLP-364
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPENNLP-364
> Project: OpenNLP
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Affects Versions: tools-1.5.3-incubating, maxent-3.0.3-incubating
> Reporter: Aliaksandr Autayeu
> Priority: Minor
> Attachments: 0004-stringbuffer-to-stringbuilder.patch
>
>
> There are *local* StringBuffer instances used in several places.
> StringBuilder is preferred:
> Where possible, it is recommended that this class be used in preference to
> StringBuffer as it will be faster under most implementations.
> More support:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_Buffer:
> The StringBuilder class, introduced in J2SE 5.0, differs from StringBuffer in
> that it is unsynchronized. When only a single thread at a time will access
> the object, using a StringBuilder processes more efficiently than using a
> StringBuffer.
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/355089/stringbuilder-and-stringbuffer-in-java:
> A test run gives the numbers of 2241 ms for StringBuffer vs 753 ms for
> StringBuilder.
> http://littletutorials.com/2008/07/16/stringbuffer-vs-stringbuilder-performance-comparison/:
> So StringBuilder is faster by a good percentage (34% on my machine in this
> case) but remember that it is not thread safe.
> Thread-safety is not threatened, as all proposed changes consider local
> variables.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
