On Jan 28, 2008, at 12:45 PM, Mr. Pierre Frisch wrote:
Actually I think the SimpleDateFormat format approach is better.
Synchronization can lead to some really strange performance issue.
I won't argue that it is not a better approach. But breaking code
that works now is not a good approach either. :-)
Chuck
On Jan 28, 2008, at 12:41, Chuck Hill wrote:
On Jan 28, 2008, at 11:50 AM, Mr. Pierre Frisch wrote:
None of the Java formats are re-entrant. NSTimestampFormatter is
synchronized which is probably why it is not a subclass of
SimpleDateFormat and that may cause other issues.
So that is another problem with just replacing
NSTimestampFormatter with SimpleDateFormat.
Chuck
Pierre
--
Pierre Frisch
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Jan 28, 2008, at 11:38, Chuck Hill wrote:
Don't forget that you should not cache format as they are not
re-entrant.
Is NSTimestampFormatter re-entrant? I have always created and
cached them at the Application level. The format is never
changed after creation. I have never noticed any problems under
load. If NSTimestampFormatter is re-entrant and
SimpleDateFormat is not, that is rather more of change.
--
Practical WebObjects - for developers who want to increase their
overall knowledge of WebObjects or who are trying to solve
specific problems.
http://www.global-village.net/products/practical_webobjects
--
Practical WebObjects - for developers who want to increase their
overall knowledge of WebObjects or who are trying to solve specific
problems.
http://www.global-village.net/products/practical_webobjects
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list ([email protected])
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
