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: