J.Pietschmann wrote:
Vincent Hennebert wrote:
Shall we launch a poll on fop-user about abandoning support for 1.4 and
require 1.5 as a minimum? :-]
A poll: maybe. Abandoning 1.3: Not yet.
Did you mean 1.4 here? I thought we had all agreed to drop support for
1.3 now? I have long argued t
J.Pietschmann wrote:
> Vincent Hennebert wrote:
>> Shall we launch a poll on fop-user about abandoning support for 1.4 and
>> require 1.5 as a minimum? :-]
>
> A poll: maybe. Abandoning 1.3: Not yet.
> If the usage of those hash maps is only in a few places, we could
> provide JDK dependent code a
On Jul 18, 2007, at 14:28, Peter B. West wrote:
Hi Peter
alt-design always cached _all_ the Integer instances it needed.
Another
startling new idea.
FWIW, I did not presume my idea to be startling or new. Just was a
bit bugged by the number of places in the current trunk where
Integer
Vincent Hennebert wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Manuel Mall a écrit :
>> On Wednesday 18 July 2007 02:58, Andreas L Delmelle wrote:
>
>> Interestingly Java 1.5 has added the Integer.valueOf(int) method with
>> the following comment:
>
> Flyweight pattern. That's what I was looking for before replying to
> A
Vincent Hennebert wrote:
Shall we launch a poll on fop-user about abandoning support for 1.4 and
require 1.5 as a minimum? :-]
A poll: maybe. Abandoning 1.3: Not yet.
If the usage of those hash maps is only in a few places, we could
provide JDK dependent code and tell people that FOP runs faste
Vincent Hennebert wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Manuel Mall a écrit :
>> On Wednesday 18 July 2007 02:58, Andreas L Delmelle wrote:
>
>> Interestingly Java 1.5 has added the Integer.valueOf(int) method with
>> the following comment:
>
> Flyweight pattern. That's what I was looking for before replying to
> A
Hi,
Manuel Mall a écrit :
> On Wednesday 18 July 2007 02:58, Andreas L Delmelle wrote:
> Interestingly Java 1.5 has added the Integer.valueOf(int) method with
> the following comment:
Flyweight pattern. That's what I was looking for before replying to
Andreas' commit, and I was surprised to not
On Wednesday 18 July 2007 02:58, Andreas L Delmelle wrote:
> On Jul 16, 2007, at 22:25, J.Pietschmann wrote:
> > Vincent Hennebert wrote:
> >>> Addition of a general-purpose int-to-int map ...
> >
> > ...
> >
> As to the efficiency:
> I did some measurements of the difference in processing speed (f
On Jul 16, 2007, at 22:25, J.Pietschmann wrote:
Vincent Hennebert wrote:
Addition of a general-purpose int-to-int map ...
...
This change makes me a bit uneasy. No doubt that this class is clever
and efficient and working, but that's something more to maintain.
Jakarta Commons Collections h
Vincent Hennebert wrote:
Addition of a general-purpose int-to-int map ...
...
This change makes me a bit uneasy. No doubt that this class is clever
and efficient and working, but that's something more to maintain.
Jakarta Commons Collections has all kind of clever implementation.
Don't they h
On Jul 16, 2007, at 16:38, Vincent Hennebert wrote:
Hi
This change makes me a bit uneasy. No doubt that this class is clever
and efficient and working, but that's something more to maintain. By
quickly looking at it I couldn't figure out exactly how it is working,
and this is the kind of code t
gt;
> Added:
> xmlgraphics/fop/trunk/src/java/org/apache/fop/util/IntMap.java (with
> props)
This change makes me a bit uneasy. No doubt that this class is clever
and efficient and working, but that's something more to maintain. By
quickly looking at it I couldn't fig
12 matches
Mail list logo
