I probably wouldn't use these collections in a factory context. If I'm concerned about speed and size, I'm going to create the primitive collection using the constructor and then use it directly. Adding in any factories, AOP, etc. is just going to add overhead.
The original issue is really whether or not the commons library is still active or if Trove is a better choice. I'd say either library will work and I've used both. Another thing to think about is your comfort with licenses. I prefer ASL over LGPL as a rule of thumb and Trove is LGPL. I tend to avoid anything with the letters G, P and L in the license. But if you can find something with BSD, that's the way to go. ;) -bp On Nov 2, 2010, at 1:24 PM, Martin Gainty wrote: > > also lookup methods from factories will reliably lookup > ArrayList<BoxedPrimitiveDatatype> 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" > > http://static.springsource.org/spring/docs/1.2.9/reference/beans.html > > thanks, > Martin Gainty > ______________________________________________ > Verzicht und Vertraulichkeitanmerkung/Note de déni et de confidentialité > > Diese Nachricht ist vertraulich. Sollten Sie nicht der vorgesehene Empfaenger > sein, so bitten wir hoeflich um eine Mitteilung. Jede unbefugte Weiterleitung > oder Fertigung einer Kopie ist unzulaessig. Diese Nachricht dient lediglich > dem Austausch von Informationen und entfaltet keine rechtliche > Bindungswirkung. Aufgrund der leichten Manipulierbarkeit von E-Mails koennen > wir keine Haftung fuer den Inhalt uebernehmen. > Ce message est confidentiel et peut être privilégié. Si vous n'êtes pas le > destinataire prévu, nous te demandons avec bonté que pour satisfaire informez > l'expéditeur. N'importe quelle diffusion non autorisée ou la copie de ceci > est interdite. Ce message sert à l'information seulement et n'aura pas > n'importe quel effet légalement obligatoire. Étant donné que les email > peuvent facilement être sujets à la manipulation, nous ne pouvons accepter > aucune responsabilité pour le contenu fourni. > > > > > >> From: [email protected] >> To: [email protected] >> Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 18:42:29 +0000 >> Subject: RE: [Primitives] Does anyone use this? >> >> 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 >> numerous Ivy/Maven repositories. >> >> Joe H. | HP Software >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Martin Gainty [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 11:41 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: RE: [Primitives] Does anyone use this? >> >> >> 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: [email protected] >>> Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 11:32:01 -0600 >>> To: [email protected] >>> >>> 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 wrote: >>> >>>> Yet another dependency to add to the mix. >>>> >>>> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Cogen, David - 1008 - MITLL >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>> From: [email protected] [[email protected]] On >>>>> Behalf Of James Carman [[email protected]] >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 12:30 PM >>>>> To: Commons Users List >>>>> Subject: Re: [Primitives] Does anyone use this? >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Normally I agree about evils of premature optimization. But ArrayListInt >>>>> is practically a drop-in replacement for ArrayList<Integer> and I see no >>>>> reason not to use it if it is supported and reliable. >>>>> >>>>> My test of 2 billion accesses (reads and writes) ran in 35% of the time >>>>> when I used ArrayListInt vs. ArrayList<Integer>. >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> 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] >>>> >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> 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] >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
