commons-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From __matthewHawthorne <ma...@phreaker.net>
Subject Re: [lang] Reusable Builder classes
Date Tue, 30 Sep 2003 22:25:01 GMT
Another quote I've heard: "premature optimization is the root of all 
evil."  I agree with what you're saying.

With the exception of some common sense situations, I think that 
performance optimizations carry the ability to pollute an API and mangle 
the internal code.  Garbage collection is improving, JVMs are getting 
faster... I'd prefer clean, maintainable code over that which goes to 
extremes to save a few milliseconds.

Measurements are a necessity for this sort of thing.  I think the 
problem has to be proven before the solution is started.  There's a nice 
profiler plugin for Eclipse that I've used a few times, it seems to do 
the job.




Gary Gregory wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I am always very weary of doing anything in the name of performance without
> any measurements based on a real usage scenario. Old motto on performance
> improvements: First, don't' do it. Second, think about it, then don't do it.
> ;-)
> 
> I think it would be interesting to discuss this if/when the post read like:
> "In our app x, we've measured with JProbe (or whatever) a bottleneck in this
> and that place were 80% of the time for a set of tasks is spent in
> FooBuilder.doThisOrThat()."
> 
> There are two kinds of performance: speed and memory usage. Here we are
> talking about creating code to change the profile and balance of these two
> aspects based on a hunch. I have been to many performance talks (JavaOne)
> where one hears things like (paraphrasing): "in an extreme case, we had this
> customer try such and such performance improvements of caching this and that
> in memory which effectively negated GC from collecting anything and led to a
> different kind of memory leak (a.k.a unwanted object retention) and
> performance degradation due to virtual memory swapping". 
> 
> From the POV of client code, this seems like quite a complication to deal
> with, especially when considering MT issues. 
> 
> Without talking sides on the details of this particular issue, when
> designing an API, you also have to consider what choices you'll give client
> code. At which point will the client code writer scratch his head with a
> "there are so many ways of doing the same thing, which one is best and
> when?". It is best if all of these choices are documented.
> 
> Gary
> 
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Stephen Colebourne [mailto:scolebourne@btopenworld.com]
>>Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 13:03
>>To: Jakarta Commons Users List
>>Subject: Re: [lang] Reusable Builder classes
>>
>>Possible I suppose. I guess I don't have strong views either for or
>>against.
>>
>>Any other [lang] committers have any views?
>>
>>Stephen
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Don Forbes" <Don.Forbes@2cana.co.za>
>>I find the Builder classes really helpful, but find it wasteful having to
>>create a new HashCodeBuilder, CompareToBuilder or EqualsBuilder for each
>>invocation of a hashCode, equals or compareTo method.  In some situations,
>>such as a sort of a large collection, these methods can end up being
>>called
>>often, thus imposing a high garbage collection overhead.
>>
>>I am thinking of something analogous to StringBuffer, which can be reset
>>for
>>reuse by simply calling setLength(0).
>>
>>How about a simple reset() method, with no parameters, that just resets
>>the
>>internal state (e.g. the variable "comparison" in the case of
>>CompareToBuilder) to its initial value?  (Possibly also a getter to
>>determine whether the builder is currently in a reusable state.)
>>
>>Granted, this would require the Builder to be an instance variable of the
>>calling object rather than a local variable, thus raising issues of thread
>>safety.  Unfortunately using sychronized methods has something of a bad
>>name
>>for performance.  In my understanding and experience this is an unfair
>>reputation, and my guess is that the overhead would be amply compensated
>>for
>>by the savings in garbage collection.  But short of this, provided the
>>caller is given the responsibility for synchronising access to the object
>>in
>>a multithreading scenario, I don't see a problem.
>>
>>Any thoughts?
>>
>>
>>Don
>>
>>---
>>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>>Version: 6.0.515 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 2003/09/01
>>
>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>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
> 
> 



---------------------------------------------------------------------
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