RE: HashMaps (WAS:RE: interface instead of implementation)

2002-11-07 Thread Rhett Aultman
want to discuss? -Original Message- From: Peter B. West [mailto:pbwest;powerup.com.au] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 6:55 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: HashMaps (WAS:RE: interface instead of implementation) Rhett, Jeremias, I was hoping there might be a little more detailed

Re: HashMaps (WAS:RE: interface instead of implementation)

2002-11-07 Thread Jeremias Maerki
I didn't intend to kill that discussion with my response. I'm not a specialist on those Reference classes but I've heard enough to say that it can be tricky and should probably not be used just because it's sexy. I'd vote for not using them unless there is a real good reason. I'm not sure about

Re: HashMaps (WAS:RE: interface instead of implementation)

2002-11-07 Thread Peter B. West
Jeremias, Rhett, I didn't realise that Reference objects were sexy, which seems to imply that was not my reason for being interested in them. Basically, Rhett, I was prompting for peoples' experiences, if any. Jeremias Maerki wrote: I didn't intend to kill that discussion with my response.

RE: HashMaps (WAS:RE: interface instead of implementation)

2002-11-07 Thread Rhett Aultman
: Peter B. West [mailto:pbwest;powerup.com.au] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 10:21 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: HashMaps (WAS:RE: interface instead of implementation) Instead of using direct references for the C and P pointers, I have been thinking vaguely about using some kind

Re: HashMaps (WAS:RE: interface instead of implementation)

2002-11-07 Thread Peter B. West
Rhett, Thanks for this. Rhett Aultman wrote: This can be a complex and dicey issue, and I'd be happy to discuss it with you further, but maybe we should take the conversation off-line, since it doesn't seem to be FOP specific? Not for now - this is percolating in the back of the mind - but

Re: HashMaps (WAS:RE: interface instead of implementation)

2002-11-06 Thread Jeremias Maerki
For caching and if done correctly, yes, there could be benefits. WeakReferences can be used if you have objects you want to keep but you're not angry when they get swept away by the GC. Good for keeping images and fonts in memory, but for overall FOP I don't see any use case. Or can anyone think

RE: HashMaps (WAS:RE: interface instead of implementation)

2002-11-06 Thread Rhett Aultman
;greenmail.ch] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 1:38 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: HashMaps (WAS:RE: interface instead of implementation) For caching and if done correctly, yes, there could be benefits. WeakReferences can be used if you have objects you want to keep but you're not angry when

Re: HashMaps (WAS:RE: interface instead of implementation)

2002-11-06 Thread Peter B. West
Rhett, Jeremias, I was hoping there might be a little more detailed discussion here. I have no experience of WeakHashMaps or the various Reference objects, but I have been thinking about using Reference objects, rather than direct references, to point to the Nodes in my Tree, with the idea