Re: synchronized code
От | Michael Paesold |
---|---|
Тема | Re: synchronized code |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 01be01c2b752$d10e45d0$3201a8c0@beeblebrox обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | synchronized code (Felipe Schnack <felipes@ritterdosreis.br>) |
Ответы |
Re: synchronized code
|
Список | pgsql-jdbc |
Felipe Schnack <felipes@ritterdosreis.br> wrote: > Is... but what got better with JVM 1.4 was synch'ing not object > creation, so you're basically saying I'm correct? :-) I think it depends on the virtual machine, but I'm no expert. I just had a look at the latest StringBuffer sources. What setLength(0) does, is to wipe the whole buffer with null-bytes ('\0') in a loop! Although I have no idea why it is done, it seems to be very inefficient. Especially when you think of the fact, that this single StringBuffer will grow, everytime a bigger string is put into it. It seams that sb.delete(0, sb.length); is much more efficient. It just resets the internal length counter? Any comments? Regards, Michael Paesold
В списке pgsql-jdbc по дате отправления: