: A performance patch for
PDFInfo class
11/13/2002 05:41
AM
Tom,
I know I also came in late into this thread. I would like to say I am very
excited about the possibilities of FOP in the future and the already
realized gains FOP gives. My overall grasp of FOP at this moment is still
limited but I have been delving into the code and using it for a
Don't be! I think this discussion is very healthy. Thanks to all who
are participating.
On 15 Nov 2002 08:50:19 +1100 Kevin O'Neill wrote:
ps: Sorry if this is boring anyone :(.
Jeremias Maerki
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
snip/
Some more insight or confusion. The byte code maybe similar in the sense
that String uses .concat() and
StringBuffer uses new StringBuffer().append to do their individual
concatenations but the way they are
treated by the JVM is not the same. Of course not all JVM's are created
equal
, and that was what I was talking about.
Butt never mind I have to read the mails better next time.
/Henrik
Kevin O'Neill [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2002-11-12 20:26
Please respond to fop-dev
To:FOP Developers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:Re: A performance patch for PDFInfo class
ok, sorry for the disturbance.
Laszlo Hornyak
ps:
StringBuffering code:
time for test: 45479
String += code:
time for test: 52011
difference: 14.36%
java version 1.4.1_01
Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard Edition (build 1.4.1_01-b01)
Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM (build 1.4.1_01-b01,
On Tue, 2002-11-12 at 20:22, Laszlo Hornyak wrote:
ok, sorry for the disturbance.
Laszlo Hornyak
ps:
StringBuffering code:
time for test: 45479
String += code:
time for test: 52011
+= is slow
+ is faster.
difference: 14.36%
java version 1.4.1_01
Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment,
On Tue, 2002-11-12 at 22:24, Henrik Olsson wrote:
On Tue, 2002-11-12 at 20:22, Laszlo Hornyak wrote:
ok, sorry for the disturbance.
Laszlo Hornyak
ps:
StringBuffering code:
time for test: 45479
String += code:
time for test: 52011
+= is slow
+ is faster.
The important
On Tue, 2002-11-12 at 20:22, Laszlo Hornyak wrote:
ok, sorry for the disturbance.
Laszlo Hornyak
ps:
StringBuffering code:
time for test: 45479
String += code:
time for test: 52011
difference: 14.36%
java version 1.4.1_01
Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard Edition (build
StringBuffer xxx.append(foo).append(bar);
understanding what the compiler does is the secret to optimizing
Strings.
Hi Kevin.
Its not an issue of what code is fastest here, its about creation and destuction of objects.
I have done several measurements on the fop to find the bottlenecks and one
On Tue, 2002-11-12 at 16:25, Henrik Olsson wrote:
StringBuffer xxx.append(foo).append(bar);
understanding what the compiler does is the secret to optimizing
Strings.
Hi Kevin.
Its not an issue of what code is fastest here, its about creation and
destuction of objects.
Surely
Keiron Liddle wrote:
Surely functionality and design count before optimisations.
Sad to here that, I think that it should be considered while you design and create functionality.
Since the FOP are realy doing the job for me, just some prefomeance issue.
/Henrik
Henrik Olsson wrote:
Sad to here that, I think that it should be considered while you design
and create functionality.
Real optimizations should take place only after careful measurements, which
possible only when your stuff works, but you cannot design, prototype or
implement with
On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 02:25, Henrik Olsson wrote:
StringBuffer xxx.append(foo).append(bar);
understanding what the compiler does is the secret to optimizing
Strings.
Hi Kevin.
Its not an issue of what code is fastest here, its about creation and
destuction of objects.
There is NO
: A performance patch for
PDFInfo class
11/12/2002 02:26
PM
Sorry if this seems hard but this is the sort of performance enhancement
I was talking about yesterday. If people are going to do these sorts of
enhancements then they should be aware of the effects.
It's always easier to work with examples.
public class StringTest
{
// String Buffer
-Original Message-
From: Kevin O'Neill [mailto:kevin;rocketred.com.au]
Sent: November 11, 2002 5:47 PM
To: FOP Developers
Subject: Re: A performance patch for PDFInfo class
[ SNIP ]
String buffers are used by the compiler to implement the binary string
concatenation operator
snip/
So the first recommendation is to use String + for this type of
method, it's easier to read and runs faster.
[ SNIP ]
This kind of thing is discussed by Jack Shirazi at length, also.
The thing is, there has long been a blanket instruction, don't use String
concatenation.
Kevin O'Neill wrote:
snip/
So the first recommendation is to use String + for this type of
method, it's easier to read and runs faster.
[This is from Arved.]
This kind of thing is discussed by Jack Shirazi at length, also.
The thing is, there has long been a blanket instruction, don't
On Tue, 2002-11-12 at 11:21, Peter B. West wrote:
Kevin O'Neill wrote:
snip/
So the first recommendation is to use String + for this type of
method, it's easier to read and runs faster.
[This is from Arved.]
This kind of thing is discussed by Jack Shirazi at length, also.
The
Kevin O'Neill wrote:
On Tue, 2002-11-12 at 11:21, Peter B. West wrote:
I like it is the acid test; for me, of all code, but in particular for
open source. Open source may be driven by many things, but money is not
one of them. Pleasure is, and is high on the list. In spite of that,
OS
21 matches
Mail list logo
