Mailing-List: contact dev-help@harmony.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@harmony.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of firepure@gmail.com designates
 72.14.220.152 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition
         :references;
        b=d2ukLXQDWq490Y08mWW8KkXFWioHz6HJ6kKBY5vqVqZpapb594yFJtUzpEK6xZKKMj
         hvi6Z1OXyb5MnC7aOp5MlBg9zJ7Z9wRE7BiJS9Q/2jJ+4tFyyTfyeQ8Yl37t8edqSD4z
         PXJYrONKnDINGhVun4+m7kYOpKCQdNzPZ9QPw=
Message-ID: <5c8e69f0808262247x4813b838hf079b75155eaa64a@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 13:47:57 +0800
From: "Jimmy,Jing Lv" <firepure@gmail.com>
To: dev@harmony.apache.org
Subject: Re: [classlib][util]java6 TreeMap improvement
In-Reply-To: <94d710af0808261819q32e23d7ck6537a85e16bc5ef9@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <5c8e69f0808260331n65ee1b8cqcdaebbd6fd2e43e4@mail.gmail.com>
	 <94d710af0808261819q32e23d7ck6537a85e16bc5ef9@mail.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