Consider using Gnu Trove (http://trove4j.sourceforge.net/).
Joe H. | HP Software
-Original Message-
From: David Cogen [mailto:co...@ll.mit.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 5:34 AM
To: Commons Users List
Subject: [Primitives] Does anyone use this?
I am considering using Commons
Premature optimization with JDK5. I'd say stick to the JDK classes if
you can and only try to beef up space/performance if you need to.
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Haswell, Joe josiah.d.hasw...@hp.com wrote:
Consider using Gnu Trove (http://trove4j.sourceforge.net/).
Joe H. | HP Software
Yet another dependency to add to the mix.
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Cogen, David - 1008 - MITLL
co...@ll.mit.edu wrote:
From: jcar...@carmanconsulting.com [jcar...@carmanconsulting.com] On Behalf
Of James Carman [ja...@carmanconsulting.com]
I would assume once you get out of the autoboxing caches the performance will
get even worse. It really depends on the application, but I've found a number
of spots where primitive collections work much better than autoboxing and JDK
collections.
-bp
On Nov 2, 2010, at 11:25 AM, James Carman
Brian
how does primitive collections implementation perform better than JDK
collections?
thanks,
Martin
__
please do not alter or disrupt this transmission. thank you
Subject: Re: [Primitives] Does anyone use this?
From:
The autoboxing process mostly. When ints are autoboxed and unboxed, there is a
performance hit because it does method invocations and instantiation.
Autoboxing for some values will hit a cache to reduce instantiation overhead,
but I think that is only for numbers 256.
I've found that Lists,
Gnu Trove includes a set of benchmarks vs. the JCF. I don't understand why
this is so controversial; a developer should be able to assess the suitability
of a library for his or her purposes without it turning into a huge debate. If
dependency-management is an issue, Trove is available from
My point was that the Jdk classes can do this with type safety already and
box/inbox it for you automatically. If that works for you, then I wouldn't
suggest adding another dependency to the mix. If you absolutely need the
space/speed improvement , then by all means use it. Adding dependencies
also lookup methods from factories will reliably lookup
ArrayListBoxedPrimitiveDatatype when bean definition has attribute
dependency-check=object but wont lookup a collection of primitives such as
int []PrimitiveDataTypeVariable even when the bean definition specified
dependency-check=simple
Hi! I am attempting to save out plist files from some groovy code, and I am not having much success when it comes to arrays. Instead of values wrapped in array tags, I get a series of key-value pairs. Here is my code (hopefully it should be close enough to java to be clear):groovy import
And the Java primitives haven't changed lately ... :-)
Siegfried Goeschl
On 11/2/10 9:52 PM, sebb wrote:
Note that lack of recent activity is not necessarily a bad sign; in
this case I think it's because the code is working fine.
I could find no outstanding bugs for the component.
On 2
11 matches
Mail list logo
