You're right:
2) Using a (self-synchronized) Hashtable will be safe for the two cases you
cite. The only problem is that you load some object(s) more often than you
have to. (And that might be bad enough, if it's a large object,...)
-- Bill K.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Kilbride [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 3:54 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: ArrayList vs. Vector
>
>
> Ok, that makes sense, but I don't think it applies to my
> case. Most of the
> caching I'm doing is read-only for the servlet. I pull the
> info out of my
> database during the init and spawn a thread to refresh the
> Hashtable every
> six hours. By refresh, I mean I'm creating a new Hashtable object and
> replacing the current cache with the new object. I'm assuming
> that replacing
> the entire object won't wreak havoc on any current accesses
> -- that the
> replace will wait until any current synchronized accesses
> have finished.
> That may be a bad assumption.
>
> In the one instance in my code where I'm doing something
> similar to what you
> have, I'm still pulling info from my database to create the
> object to be
> cached. If two requests come in nearly simultaneously,
> they'll both pull the
> same info from my database and the second will overwrite the
> first in my
> cache. No big deal, because they both contain the same
> info/same key. I'm
> not sure if synchronizing the whole block is worthwhile in
> this case. Any
> strong argument why I should?
>
> Thanks,
> --jeff
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "William Kaufman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 2:39 PM
> Subject: RE: ArrayList vs. Vector
>
>
> > > I still use Vectors/Hashtables when I need thread safety,
> though. Does
> > > anyone know if it's faster/better to wrap one of the new
> > > collection classes in a Collections.synchronized* class instead?
> >
> > I'd expect Vector/Hashtable to be a little faster: they subclass
> > ArrayList/HashMap, where synchronized Collections are proxies.
> >
> > But, really, neither one works.
> >
> > Any places you'd use a collection, it's usually insufficient to
> synchronize
> > the specific access: what you need to do is synchronize a block of
> accesses.
> > For instance, here's a simple cache of "Foo" objects (each
> identified by
> > name), implemented with a Hashtable:
> >
> > Hashtable fooCache = new Hashtable();
> >
> > public Foo getFoo(String name)
> > {
> > Foo foo = (Foo)fooCache.get(name);
> > if (foo == null)
> > {
> > foo = new Foo(name);
> > fooCache.put(name, foo);
> > }
> > return foo;
> > }
> >
> > If you only want one Foo allocated per name--always--this caching
> mechanism
> > will break down. You'd need to synchronize around _all_
> accesses to the
> > fooCache, whether it's a Hashtable or a HashMap. In other words,
> > synchronizing the table's access methods don't buy you
> anything--you need
> to
> > synchronize _across_ calls. And once you synchronize it correctly,
> > synchronizing specific methods just slows you down.
> >
> > So, you should implement the above code as,
> >
> > HashMap fooCache = new HashMap();
> >
> > public Foo getFoo(String name)
> > {
> > synchronized (fooCache)
> > {
> > Foo foo = (Foo)fooCache.get(name);
> > if (foo == null)
> > {
> > foo = new Foo(name);
> > fooCache.put(name, foo);
> > }
> > return foo;
> > }
> > }
> >
> > This may be a peculiar case for you, but you're probably
> doing something
> > which needs similar synchronization--whatever kind of
> collection you're
> > using.
> >
> >
> -- Bill K.
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jeff Kilbride [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 2:06 PM
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: Re: ArrayList vs. Vector
> > >
> > >
> > > I recently re-wrote some older java code (jdk 1.1 based) and
> > > one of my goals
> > > was to use the new collection classes. I moved all of my
> > > Hashtables/Vectors
> > > that didn't need to be thread safe to HashMaps/ArrayLists. No
> > > problems under
> > > Tomcat.
> > >
> > > I still use Vectors/Hashtables when I need thread safety,
> though. Does
> > > anyone know if it's faster/better to wrap one of the new
> > > collection classes
> > > in a Collections.synchronized* class instead? It just seems
> > > easier to me to
> > > use Vectors/Hashtables, since they're already internally
> synchronized.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > --jeff
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Hunter Hillegas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > To: "Tomcat User List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 12:36 PM
> > > Subject: ArrayList vs. Vector
> > >
> > >
> > > > I use Vectors in some parts of my Web app and I'm thinking
> > > about using
> > > > ArrayLists instead...
> > > >
> > > > Any caveats to using them in a Web app environment?
> > > >
> > > > Hunter
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
