-
From: "Bill Burke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Sourceforge. Net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 6:06 AM
Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] CacheKey copy semantics and speed
> Sorry to chime in so lateBut hasn't my CacheKey change been in since
>
Bordet, Simone wrote:
> eee, man this guy seem to *always* be right. Ah well, pure alien
> category.
> Rickard, ehrm, who will win the football league this year ? :-))
I *could* tell, but that'd spoil the fun ;-)
/Rickard
--
Rickard Öberg
_
Hey,
> > So, if you're going to get rid of the MarshalledObject and
> all the copying,
> > why not just get rid of CacheKey all together?
>
>
> Hehe... if it is removed I have only one thing to say: "told
> you so"... >:-)
>
> /Rickard
eee, man this guy seem to *always* be right. Ah wel
Bill Burke wrote:
> Also remember why I added the copying to the CacheKey in the first place.
> What I was doing in my application code was reusing a fat-primary key so I
> didn't have to reallocate one. Thus the entity cache was getting corrupted
> because I kept on changing the shared primary
; |[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Scott
> |M Stark
> |Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 8:55 PM
> |To: Jboss-Development@Lists. Sourceforge. Net
> |Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] CacheKey copy semantics and speed
> |
> |
> |Ok, but all of that time was really due to the removal
AIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jboss-Development@Lists. Sourceforge. Net"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 5:43 PM
Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] CacheKey copy semantics and speed
>
> Yes it does use byte[] comparisons in a for loop. Let me give you
> a push in my
:)
you win
marcf
|-Original Message-
|From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Scott
|M Stark
|Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 8:44 PM
|To: Jboss-Development@Lists. Sourceforge. Net
|Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] CacheKey copy semantics and speed
|
|
|
|Yes it does
ment@Lists. Sourceforge. Net
|Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] CacheKey copy semantics and speed
|
|
|Ok, but all of that time was really due to the removal of the
|MarshalledObject.get(). Running with the CacheKey implementation
|pre the copy gives basically the same time as the non-MarshalledObject
|version:
|
|1
ssage -
From: "marc fleury" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "marc fleury" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Scott M Stark"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Jboss-Development@Lists. Sourceforge.
Net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 5:24 PM
Subject
esday, November 13, 2001 8:17 PM
|To: Scott M Stark; Jboss-Development@Lists. Sourceforge. Net
|Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] CacheKey copy semantics and speed
|
|
||How can it be lightweight when it has to make a deep copy of the true key
||using serialization? Bill's change was to add yet anothe
One thing I have noticed it that the newbie programmers that are most likely
to not implement equals and hashCode correctly, don't use a custom primary
key. Instead they use an Integer, Long, or String.
-dain
> -Original Message-
> From: marc fleury [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tu
;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 5:16 PM
Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] CacheKey copy semantics and speed
> |How can it be lightweight when it has to make a deep copy of the true key
> |using serialization? Bill's change was to add yet another copy, so
>
> bec
;Jboss-Development@Lists. Sourceforge. Net"
|<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
|Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 3:59 PM
|Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] CacheKey copy semantics and speed
|
|
|> The basic cachekey is not expensive, in fact it is more
|lightweight than a
|> regular key, creating the serialized r
ssage -
From: "marc fleury" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Scott M Stark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
"Jboss-Development@Lists. Sourceforge. Net"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 3:59 PM
Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] CacheKey copy semantics and speed
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Scott
|M Stark
|Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 6:51 PM
|To: Jboss-Development@Lists. Sourceforge. Net
|Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] CacheKey copy semantics and speed
|
|
|It wasn't Bill that added this. It was first added in 1.2 and then expanded
|in
|1.8, more co
It wasn't Bill that added this. It was first added in 1.2 and then expanded
in
1.8, more copying added in 1.10, etc. This whole thing started to create an
idiot proof key, which cannot be done. Instead we have a big fat expensive
key that is killing performance. Let the user live and die by their
16 matches
Mail list logo
