commons-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Robert Simmons" <deri...@arcor.de>
Subject Re: StringBuffer pools and why not to use them
Date Tue, 18 Feb 2003 17:57:55 GMT
Correct on Second. First is debatable because you dont knwo what code
follows. Now Chill a bit will ya. Life is packed with thousands that wouldnt
have even bothered to try the test this guy did before advocating it. Save
the ammo for someone that really deserves it.

-- Robert

----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Duprat" <christopher.duprat@wanadoo.fr>
Newsgroups: gmane.comp.jakarta.commons.user
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 6:54 PM
Subject: Re: StringBuffer pools and why not to use them


> Well said,
>
> First allocation : 500 is too big
> Second Concatenation : it take more time to concatenate string than append
> them!
>
> StringBuffer buf = new StringBuffer(124);
> buf.append("This is a test under ");
> buf.append(System.getProperty("os.arch") );
> buf.append(" operating system, version ");
> buf.append(System.getProperty("os.version"));
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert Simmons" <derisor@arcor.de>
> To: <commons-user@jakarta.apache.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 6:13 PM
> Subject: Re: StringBuffer pools and why not to use them
>
>
> > Well now ... I think this post goes a bit far. At least he tried the task
> before
> > advocating it. The fact is that a large number of people poorly use
> StringBuffer
> > anyway. This could account for performance hits. The simple line of code
> that
> > you see all the time like:
> >
> > StringBuffer buf = new StringBuffer(500);
> > buf.append("This is a test under " + System.getProperty("os.arch") +
> >                   " operating system, version " +
> > System.getProperty("os.version"));
> >
> > This code has a serious problem. Since you are so busy calling others
> idiots,
> > can you tell us all why ?
> >
> > -- Robert
> >
> > "Chris Duprat" <christopher.duprat@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
> > news:005001c2d76c$a542bf50$8dfb0d50@zzz...
> > > Wasting of time. You shouldn't have the idea of implementing a pool for
> such
> > > objects because of their high availability. By adding another level you
> just
> > > reach the performance issue which is critical for that kind of objects.
> > >
> > > You're an Idiot ;-)
> > > http://www.pagetutor.com/idiot/idiot.html
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Chris
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Lester Ward" <lward@tagaudit.com>
> > > To: <commons-user@jakarta.apache.org>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 4:19 PM
> > > Subject: StringBuffer pools and why not to use them
> > >
> > >
> > > > I was doing some performance tuning recently and thought to try
> pooling
> > > > StringBuffers. I built a pool for them based on StackKeydObjectPool.
> Bad
> > > > idea. Here is why:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.divnull.com/lward/personal/writing/stringpool.html
> > > >
> > > > Comments welcome.
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: commons-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: commons-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >


Mime
View raw message