Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-xml-cocoon-dev-archive@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 40231 invoked by uid 500); 19 Mar 2003 16:21:46 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Reply-To: cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 40167 invoked from network); 19 Mar 2003 16:21:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pulse.betaversion.org) (217.158.110.65) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 19 Mar 2003 16:21:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 3617 invoked from network); 19 Mar 2003 16:21:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO apache.org) (stefano@80.105.91.155) by pulse.betaversion.org with SMTP; 19 Mar 2003 16:21:43 -0000 Message-ID: <3E789928.3040704@apache.org> Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:22:00 +0100 From: Stefano Mazzocchi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030312 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org Subject: Re: [FYI] heapprofile analysis References: <000301c2edfc$c2114b50$0801a8c0@Lagrange> <3E78767E.1020506@apache.org> <3E787FC7.7050802@verizon.net> <3E78806D.9010604@apache.org> In-Reply-To: <3E78806D.9010604@apache.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Gianugo Rabellino wrote: > Vadim Gritsenko wrote: > >>> >>> Holy shit! This is a *HUGE* bug. We (and Xerces) use StringBuffers >>> all over the place!!! In fact, it seems that StringBuffer.toString() >>> is our hotspot. >>> >>> I'll come up with more profile information soon. >> >> >> >> >> Why don't you switch to 1.3.1? Oh, sure, I can. But many people will run it out of the box with the latest and greatest JVM and complain to *US* that their memory footprint is sky-high. we must make sure we tell people when we release. > For that matter, 1.4.0 would behave just OK (infact someone is simply > replacing the StringBuffer class in the rt.jar file with the 1.4.0 > counterpart... scary :-)). I thought about doing it. I admit :) > Yet it would be *much* better have a 1.4.1.x > out RSN to fix this important issue. Hopefully. Stefano.