On 10/17/07, Thilo Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm thinking about experimenting with alternative heap > implementations in the CAS. In particular, I would like > to try out a heap impl that uses regular Java objects to > represent feature structures, as opposed to our proprietary > binary heap. > <snip/>
My two cents: I'm in favor of experimenting with a new heap implementation. For co-located deployments Java object overhead should not be an issue at all, since in almost all cases we end up creating a Java object for each FeatureStructure anyway. However for remote services I think it's a different story. Services may only access some of the objects in the CAS and therefore in the current implementation we never have to create Java objects for many of them. I don't know how significant this is though, since as you said JREs have gotten much better about their object creation overhead and per-object memory footprint. Also what about the logistics of manging the source code - would this work be done in a separate branch? -Adam
