Boris is right of course. That's the main reason that I was thinking when I said that. There's definitely no need for the overhead of synchronization in the case that we were discussing. Another reason that I was thinking about, but didn't elude to very well is that you should always try to declare variables as Interface types, rather than concrete classes. So instead of declaring:
Vector items = new Vector(); you should instead use the List interface, which the Vector is one of the implementors of: List items = new Vector(); What's nice about dealing with interface types instead, especially if you isolate where your objects are instantiated is that you are then free to change the implementation type like this: List items = new ArrayList(); Any client that used this items List is not affected as long as they deal with the interface type and not the concrete implementation. This is a big bonus. Look through the Java API's and you'll see many factories taking advantage of this concept. Like JNDI, JMS, and JDBC. This is why I said that, but I should have elaborated more on the subject. Sorry, Chuck -- Sent via jApache.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
