For what it's worth, I second the second option. However, copying commons.collections code into taglibs.standard has some down sides, one of which is that if any bugs are fixed in the commons.collections code we will have to re-copy the new code into taglibs.standard (and we'd have to watch closely for changes in commons.collections so we'd know when such action is necessary). But if the 1.0 branch of taglibs.standard is merely maintained for legacy reasons, then I guess it's sufficient.
I am using Java 1.4, so for now I'm going to have to implement the LinkedHashMap solution. Upon working more with my cache-disabled version, I noticed that my processor usage jumped from 10% with the cache to 90% without it. Soooo... LinkedHashMap, here I come (for now). - Daryl. -----Original Message----- From: Felipe Leme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 6:03 AM To: Tag Libraries Developers List Subject: Re: Memory Leak in ELEvaluator.java (standard v1.0.6) After thinking a little bit further, we definitively need the second option, also renaming the package, otherwise we could cause conflicts if the web application already uses commons. So we should use something like org.apache.taglibs.standard.extra.commons.collections.LRUMap instead. On Wed, 2004-10-20 at 07:53, Felipe Leme wrote: > Assuming these classes doesn't have deep dependencies on others, I > would say the second option would be better (in the worst case, we > would do some minor changes in the classes, like removing calls to > Commons Logging, if any). --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
