CompositeMethodsModel Michael
On Fri, March 6, 2009 10:47, Stuart McCulloch wrote: > 2009/3/6 Rickard Öberg <[email protected]> > > >> Niclas Hedhman wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 9:25 AM, Rickard Öberg >>> <[email protected]> >>> >> wrote: >> >>>> Doesn't that lead to the >>>> same lookup as we are talking about? >>> >>> Question to Stuart; I understand that it is a implementation detail >>> whether there is one Method instance or many. But in the Sun >>> implementation, can we perform a "==" instead of hashing for method >>> lookup? I.e. loop through an array, since as Michael points out, the >>> method count is relatively small, and "==" is fairly cheap. >> >> The problem, I think, is that the Method we have during assembly is >> different from the one we get during Proxy invocation, so there's no way >> to do == checks. :-( Otherwise we could use an IdentityMap and be done >> with it... >> > > How accurate does the method matching have to be? > > > Is there any possibility of using the method signature (say > method.toString()) to do the hashmap lookup instead of the actual method > object itself? You'd get clashes for hiding/overriding methods which have > the same signature, but this might not occur in the limited world of the > proxy... > > also as it's been a while since I looked at the Qi4j runtime internals, > could someone point me to the particular piece of code that needs > optimizing :) > > /Rickard > >> _______________________________________________ >> qi4j-dev mailing list [email protected] >> http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev >> >> > > -- > Cheers, Stuart > _______________________________________________ > qi4j-dev mailing list [email protected] > http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev > > -- _______________________________________________ qi4j-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev
