commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Stephen Colebourne" <>
Subject Re: [lang] mutables
Date Mon, 21 Jun 2004 08:08:59 GMT
I've only now got a chance to review this (holiday ;-).

I am less than happy with the current CVS code as it involves storing each
subclass as an Object. IMO, the whole point of this package is to create
classes that hold each value as a primitive, as per the java lang Number
subclasses, and [lang] Range classes.

I know that this creates more code in the jar, but that is irrelevant next
to the new Integer() or new Byte() etc in the constructor of the CVS code.
Creating these additional objects is a memory hog and bad for the gc. I can
see no advantage other than jar size for the CVS code, hence would -1 the
current CVS.

I haven't checked if this was how the classes were originally. If so, can we


----- Original Message -----
From: "Henri Yandell" <>
> First thought when looking at the code is that we could simplify things
> with a protected Number in MutableNumber, and move the intValue etc
> methods up into MutableNumber.
> The getValue/ setValue(Object) can go up too, and all that would be left
> in the mutable subclass is the primitive override and the constructor.
> Pro: Less code in the subclasses.
> Con: A protected rather than private variable. More memory is taken up
>      with the mutable part being an Object and not a primitive.
> Just a thought.
> Hen
> On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, matthew.hawthorne wrote:
> > I just made a checkin of some initial code for mutables.  I haven't used
> > CVS in
> > a few months now (switched to subversion) so let's hope I didn't screw
> > anything up.
> >
> > I have to admit that I haven't looked at this code for a good time,
> > since around
> > August maybe.  So all are welcome to take a look and make improvements.
> > I don't really have a solid use case for these classes anymore, so I'd
> > imagine
> > that others will have a better insight in that regard.
> >
> > The test coverage is pretty good, I think in the 70% range.  I remember
> > learning
> > some weird things about the way Java handles primitive number
> > conversions, as
> > I was trying to get the tests to pass.  If something looks bizarre give
> > a yell and
> > I'll investigate.
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > For additional commands, e-mail:
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message