harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Sean Qiu" <sean.xx....@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [classlib][util]java6 TreeMap improvement
Date Wed, 27 Aug 2008 06:35:39 GMT
I have created the JIRA-5935 to all merging work.
You can comment there.
I think you can create a separate jira for TreeMap.

2008/8/27 Jimmy,Jing Lv <firepure@gmail.com>:
> Hi,
>
>    Thanks Sean, I've noticed that and fixed them in the change
> already. And is there a jira for these failure?
>
> 2008/8/27 Sean Qiu <sean.xx.qiu@gmail.com>:
>> Great, Jimmy.
>>
>> I have not merge the updates from trunk5 for TreeMap since you said
>> you will do it separately for it.
>> Could you please pay your attention to these tests as well?
>> They are supposed to pass after your updates.
>>
>> TreeMapTest                             test_entrySet_contains
>> TreeMapRndTest                      testValues
>> TreeMapRndTest                      testViews
>>
>> Thank you for your job.
>>
>> 2008/8/26 Jimmy,Jing Lv <firepure@gmail.com>:
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>>    As we discussed before, I plan to merge TreeMap performance
>>> improvement into Harmony java6 level, which have many API enhancement,
>>> and the structure of code refactors a lot due to the API changes.
>>> Currently I am close to finish.
>>>    Mainly Java6 TreeMap has a new interface "NavigableMap"  which
>>> requires a lot more operations on TreeMap as ascending/descending the
>>> map, define submaps and entries more precisely. That's the reason we
>>> have many different inner classes for TreeMap. And in Harmony5 TreeMap
>>> performance improvement,  the basic Node/Entry of the TreeMap is
>>> changed so it requires a big change in the whole TreeMap class and its
>>> variety of child classes.
>>>    I've tried best to avoid performance downgrading with API changes
>>> in java6. The main solution is that I try to keep simple operations as
>>> it is in java5,  that is, if some methods are changed due to Java6
>>> inner classes changes at the begining, I may try to keep a java5 inner
>>> class and operate it. That's why the size of java6 TreeMap has
>>> increased a bit.   However with some benchmark it shows the
>>> performance was at least no worse than harmony java5 TreeMap. And I've
>>> add a few more test cases to ensure the correctiveness of the
>>> refactor, and also fix some bugs that remains in the original java6
>>> TreeMap.
>>>
>>>    I'll soon commit the fix.  I believe there's still a lot to be
>>> improved here, e.g, reduce the class size, refactor/merge some inner
>>> classes, and improve some methods that are not optimized yet.
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------
>>> Best Regards!
>>>
>>> Jimmy, Jing Lv
>>> China Software Development Lab, IBM
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best Regards
>> Sean, Xiao Xia Qiu
>>
>> China Software Development Lab, IBM
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Best Regards!
>
> Jimmy, Jing Lv
> China Software Development Lab, IBM
>



-- 
Best Regards
Sean, Xiao Xia Qiu

China Software Development Lab, IBM

Mime
View raw message