You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@commons.apache.org by David Cogen <co...@ll.mit.edu> on 2010/11/02 12:33:36 UTC
[Primitives] Does anyone use this?
I am considering using Commons Primitives but I note that it is at
release 1.0 and hasn't changed for 7 years. Should I be using it? Is it
considered reliable? I am interested in the primitive array types like
ArrayIntList.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [Primitives] Does anyone use this?
Posted by Siegfried Goeschl <sg...@gmx.at>.
And the Java primitives haven't changed lately ... :-)
Siegfried Goeschl
On 11/2/10 9:52 PM, sebb wrote:
> Note that lack of recent activity is not necessarily a bad sign; in
> this case I think it's because the code is working fine.
> I could find no outstanding bugs for the component.
>
> On 2 November 2010 20:10, Brian Pontarelli<br...@pontarelli.com> wrote:
>> I probably wouldn't use these collections in a factory context. If I'm concerned about speed and size, I'm going to create the primitive collection using the constructor and then use it directly. Adding in any factories, AOP, etc. is just going to add overhead.
>>
>> The original issue is really whether or not the commons library is still active or if Trove is a better choice. I'd say either library will work and I've used both. Another thing to think about is your comfort with licenses. I prefer ASL over LGPL as a rule of thumb and Trove is LGPL. I tend to avoid anything with the letters G, P and L in the license. But if you can find something with BSD, that's the way to go.
>>
>> ;)
>>
>> -bp
>>
>>
>> On Nov 2, 2010, at 1:24 PM, Martin Gainty wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> also lookup methods from factories will reliably lookup ArrayList<BoxedPrimitiveDatatype> when bean definition has attribute
>>> dependency-check="object" but wont lookup a collection of primitives such as int []PrimitiveDataTypeVariable even when the bean definition specified dependency-check="simple"
>>>
>>> http://static.springsource.org/spring/docs/1.2.9/reference/beans.html
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>> Martin Gainty
>>> ______________________________________________
>>> Verzicht und Vertraulichkeitanmerkung/Note de déni et de confidentialité
>>>
>>> Diese Nachricht ist vertraulich. Sollten Sie nicht der vorgesehene Empfaenger sein, so bitten wir hoeflich um eine Mitteilung. Jede unbefugte Weiterleitung oder Fertigung einer Kopie ist unzulaessig. Diese Nachricht dient lediglich dem Austausch von Informationen und entfaltet keine rechtliche Bindungswirkung. Aufgrund der leichten Manipulierbarkeit von E-Mails koennen wir keine Haftung fuer den Inhalt uebernehmen.
>>> Ce message est confidentiel et peut être privilégié. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire prévu, nous te demandons avec bonté que pour satisfaire informez l'expéditeur. N'importe quelle diffusion non autorisée ou la copie de ceci est interdite. Ce message sert à l'information seulement et n'aura pas n'importe quel effet légalement obligatoire. Étant donné que les email peuvent facilement être sujets à la manipulation, nous ne pouvons accepter aucune responsabilité pour le contenu fourni.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> From: josiah.d.haswell@hp.com
>>>> To: user@commons.apache.org
>>>> Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 18:42:29 +0000
>>>> Subject: RE: [Primitives] Does anyone use this?
>>>>
>>>> Gnu Trove includes a set of benchmarks vs. the JCF. I don't understand why this is so controversial; a developer should be able to assess the suitability of a library for his or her purposes without it turning into a huge debate. If dependency-management is an issue, Trove is available from numerous Ivy/Maven repositories.
>>>>
>>>> Joe H. | HP Software
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Martin Gainty [mailto:mgainty@hotmail.com]
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 11:41 AM
>>>> To: user@commons.apache.org
>>>> Subject: RE: [Primitives] Does anyone use this?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Brian
>>>>
>>>> how does primitive collections implementation perform better than JDK collections?
>>>>
>>>> thanks,
>>>> Martin
>>>> ______________________________________________
>>>> please do not alter or disrupt this transmission. thank you
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Primitives] Does anyone use this?
>>>>> From: brian@pontarelli.com
>>>>> Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 11:32:01 -0600
>>>>> To: user@commons.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>> I would assume once you get out of the autoboxing caches the performance will get even worse. It really depends on the application, but I've found a number of spots where primitive collections work much better than autoboxing and JDK collections.
>>>>>
>>>>> -bp
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Nov 2, 2010, at 11:25 AM, James Carman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yet another dependency to add to the mix.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Cogen, David - 1008 - MITLL
>>>>>> <co...@ll.mit.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>>>> From: jcarman@carmanconsulting.com [jcarman@carmanconsulting.com] On Behalf Of James Carman [james@carmanconsulting.com]
>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 12:30 PM
>>>>>>> To: Commons Users List
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Primitives] Does anyone use this?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Premature optimization with JDK5. I'd say stick to the JDK classes if
>>>>>>> you can and only try to beef up space/performance if you need to.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Normally I agree about evils of premature optimization. But ArrayListInt is practically a drop-in replacement for ArrayList<Integer> and I see no reason not to use it if it is supported and reliable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My test of 2 billion accesses (reads and writes) ran in 35% of the time when I used ArrayListInt vs. ArrayList<Integer>.
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [Primitives] Does anyone use this?
Posted by Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com>.
Something else to consider is Stephen Colebourne's Joda Primitives:
http://joda-primitives.sourceforge.net/
Commons Primitives hasn't been touched since 2005 when Stephen was
active on the component. I think it's an Attic component (ie not being
worked on and no future releases expected).
Bcc to Commons Users; moving conversation to Dev on the 2nd point.
Hen
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 1:52 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Note that lack of recent activity is not necessarily a bad sign; in
> this case I think it's because the code is working fine.
> I could find no outstanding bugs for the component.
>
> On 2 November 2010 20:10, Brian Pontarelli <br...@pontarelli.com> wrote:
>> I probably wouldn't use these collections in a factory context. If I'm concerned about speed and size, I'm going to create the primitive collection using the constructor and then use it directly. Adding in any factories, AOP, etc. is just going to add overhead.
>>
>> The original issue is really whether or not the commons library is still active or if Trove is a better choice. I'd say either library will work and I've used both. Another thing to think about is your comfort with licenses. I prefer ASL over LGPL as a rule of thumb and Trove is LGPL. I tend to avoid anything with the letters G, P and L in the license. But if you can find something with BSD, that's the way to go.
>>
>> ;)
>>
>> -bp
>>
>>
>> On Nov 2, 2010, at 1:24 PM, Martin Gainty wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> also lookup methods from factories will reliably lookup ArrayList<BoxedPrimitiveDatatype> when bean definition has attribute
>>> dependency-check="object" but wont lookup a collection of primitives such as int []PrimitiveDataTypeVariable even when the bean definition specified dependency-check="simple"
>>>
>>> http://static.springsource.org/spring/docs/1.2.9/reference/beans.html
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>> Martin Gainty
>>> ______________________________________________
>>> Verzicht und Vertraulichkeitanmerkung/Note de déni et de confidentialité
>>>
>>> Diese Nachricht ist vertraulich. Sollten Sie nicht der vorgesehene Empfaenger sein, so bitten wir hoeflich um eine Mitteilung. Jede unbefugte Weiterleitung oder Fertigung einer Kopie ist unzulaessig. Diese Nachricht dient lediglich dem Austausch von Informationen und entfaltet keine rechtliche Bindungswirkung. Aufgrund der leichten Manipulierbarkeit von E-Mails koennen wir keine Haftung fuer den Inhalt uebernehmen.
>>> Ce message est confidentiel et peut être privilégié. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire prévu, nous te demandons avec bonté que pour satisfaire informez l'expéditeur. N'importe quelle diffusion non autorisée ou la copie de ceci est interdite. Ce message sert à l'information seulement et n'aura pas n'importe quel effet légalement obligatoire. Étant donné que les email peuvent facilement être sujets à la manipulation, nous ne pouvons accepter aucune responsabilité pour le contenu fourni.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> From: josiah.d.haswell@hp.com
>>>> To: user@commons.apache.org
>>>> Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 18:42:29 +0000
>>>> Subject: RE: [Primitives] Does anyone use this?
>>>>
>>>> Gnu Trove includes a set of benchmarks vs. the JCF. I don't understand why this is so controversial; a developer should be able to assess the suitability of a library for his or her purposes without it turning into a huge debate. If dependency-management is an issue, Trove is available from numerous Ivy/Maven repositories.
>>>>
>>>> Joe H. | HP Software
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Martin Gainty [mailto:mgainty@hotmail.com]
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 11:41 AM
>>>> To: user@commons.apache.org
>>>> Subject: RE: [Primitives] Does anyone use this?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Brian
>>>>
>>>> how does primitive collections implementation perform better than JDK collections?
>>>>
>>>> thanks,
>>>> Martin
>>>> ______________________________________________
>>>> please do not alter or disrupt this transmission. thank you
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Primitives] Does anyone use this?
>>>>> From: brian@pontarelli.com
>>>>> Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 11:32:01 -0600
>>>>> To: user@commons.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>> I would assume once you get out of the autoboxing caches the performance will get even worse. It really depends on the application, but I've found a number of spots where primitive collections work much better than autoboxing and JDK collections.
>>>>>
>>>>> -bp
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Nov 2, 2010, at 11:25 AM, James Carman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yet another dependency to add to the mix.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Cogen, David - 1008 - MITLL
>>>>>> <co...@ll.mit.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>>>> From: jcarman@carmanconsulting.com [jcarman@carmanconsulting.com] On Behalf Of James Carman [james@carmanconsulting.com]
>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 12:30 PM
>>>>>>> To: Commons Users List
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Primitives] Does anyone use this?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Premature optimization with JDK5. I'd say stick to the JDK classes if
>>>>>>> you can and only try to beef up space/performance if you need to.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Normally I agree about evils of premature optimization. But ArrayListInt is practically a drop-in replacement for ArrayList<Integer> and I see no reason not to use it if it is supported and reliable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My test of 2 billion accesses (reads and writes) ran in 35% of the time when I used ArrayListInt vs. ArrayList<Integer>.
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [Primitives] Does anyone use this?
Posted by Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com>.
Something else to consider is Stephen Colebourne's Joda Primitives:
http://joda-primitives.sourceforge.net/
Commons Primitives hasn't been touched since 2005 when Stephen was
active on the component. I think it's an Attic component (ie not being
worked on and no future releases expected).
Bcc to Commons Users; moving conversation to Dev on the 2nd point.
Hen
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 1:52 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Note that lack of recent activity is not necessarily a bad sign; in
> this case I think it's because the code is working fine.
> I could find no outstanding bugs for the component.
>
> On 2 November 2010 20:10, Brian Pontarelli <br...@pontarelli.com> wrote:
>> I probably wouldn't use these collections in a factory context. If I'm concerned about speed and size, I'm going to create the primitive collection using the constructor and then use it directly. Adding in any factories, AOP, etc. is just going to add overhead.
>>
>> The original issue is really whether or not the commons library is still active or if Trove is a better choice. I'd say either library will work and I've used both. Another thing to think about is your comfort with licenses. I prefer ASL over LGPL as a rule of thumb and Trove is LGPL. I tend to avoid anything with the letters G, P and L in the license. But if you can find something with BSD, that's the way to go.
>>
>> ;)
>>
>> -bp
>>
>>
>> On Nov 2, 2010, at 1:24 PM, Martin Gainty wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> also lookup methods from factories will reliably lookup ArrayList<BoxedPrimitiveDatatype> when bean definition has attribute
>>> dependency-check="object" but wont lookup a collection of primitives such as int []PrimitiveDataTypeVariable even when the bean definition specified dependency-check="simple"
>>>
>>> http://static.springsource.org/spring/docs/1.2.9/reference/beans.html
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>> Martin Gainty
>>> ______________________________________________
>>> Verzicht und Vertraulichkeitanmerkung/Note de déni et de confidentialité
>>>
>>> Diese Nachricht ist vertraulich. Sollten Sie nicht der vorgesehene Empfaenger sein, so bitten wir hoeflich um eine Mitteilung. Jede unbefugte Weiterleitung oder Fertigung einer Kopie ist unzulaessig. Diese Nachricht dient lediglich dem Austausch von Informationen und entfaltet keine rechtliche Bindungswirkung. Aufgrund der leichten Manipulierbarkeit von E-Mails koennen wir keine Haftung fuer den Inhalt uebernehmen.
>>> Ce message est confidentiel et peut être privilégié. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire prévu, nous te demandons avec bonté que pour satisfaire informez l'expéditeur. N'importe quelle diffusion non autorisée ou la copie de ceci est interdite. Ce message sert à l'information seulement et n'aura pas n'importe quel effet légalement obligatoire. Étant donné que les email peuvent facilement être sujets à la manipulation, nous ne pouvons accepter aucune responsabilité pour le contenu fourni.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> From: josiah.d.haswell@hp.com
>>>> To: user@commons.apache.org
>>>> Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 18:42:29 +0000
>>>> Subject: RE: [Primitives] Does anyone use this?
>>>>
>>>> Gnu Trove includes a set of benchmarks vs. the JCF. I don't understand why this is so controversial; a developer should be able to assess the suitability of a library for his or her purposes without it turning into a huge debate. If dependency-management is an issue, Trove is available from numerous Ivy/Maven repositories.
>>>>
>>>> Joe H. | HP Software
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Martin Gainty [mailto:mgainty@hotmail.com]
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 11:41 AM
>>>> To: user@commons.apache.org
>>>> Subject: RE: [Primitives] Does anyone use this?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Brian
>>>>
>>>> how does primitive collections implementation perform better than JDK collections?
>>>>
>>>> thanks,
>>>> Martin
>>>> ______________________________________________
>>>> please do not alter or disrupt this transmission. thank you
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Primitives] Does anyone use this?
>>>>> From: brian@pontarelli.com
>>>>> Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 11:32:01 -0600
>>>>> To: user@commons.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>> I would assume once you get out of the autoboxing caches the performance will get even worse. It really depends on the application, but I've found a number of spots where primitive collections work much better than autoboxing and JDK collections.
>>>>>
>>>>> -bp
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Nov 2, 2010, at 11:25 AM, James Carman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yet another dependency to add to the mix.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Cogen, David - 1008 - MITLL
>>>>>> <co...@ll.mit.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>>>> From: jcarman@carmanconsulting.com [jcarman@carmanconsulting.com] On Behalf Of James Carman [james@carmanconsulting.com]
>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 12:30 PM
>>>>>>> To: Commons Users List
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Primitives] Does anyone use this?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Premature optimization with JDK5. I'd say stick to the JDK classes if
>>>>>>> you can and only try to beef up space/performance if you need to.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Normally I agree about evils of premature optimization. But ArrayListInt is practically a drop-in replacement for ArrayList<Integer> and I see no reason not to use it if it is supported and reliable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My test of 2 billion accesses (reads and writes) ran in 35% of the time when I used ArrayListInt vs. ArrayList<Integer>.
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [Primitives] Does anyone use this?
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
Note that lack of recent activity is not necessarily a bad sign; in
this case I think it's because the code is working fine.
I could find no outstanding bugs for the component.
On 2 November 2010 20:10, Brian Pontarelli <br...@pontarelli.com> wrote:
> I probably wouldn't use these collections in a factory context. If I'm concerned about speed and size, I'm going to create the primitive collection using the constructor and then use it directly. Adding in any factories, AOP, etc. is just going to add overhead.
>
> The original issue is really whether or not the commons library is still active or if Trove is a better choice. I'd say either library will work and I've used both. Another thing to think about is your comfort with licenses. I prefer ASL over LGPL as a rule of thumb and Trove is LGPL. I tend to avoid anything with the letters G, P and L in the license. But if you can find something with BSD, that's the way to go.
>
> ;)
>
> -bp
>
>
> On Nov 2, 2010, at 1:24 PM, Martin Gainty wrote:
>
>>
>> also lookup methods from factories will reliably lookup ArrayList<BoxedPrimitiveDatatype> when bean definition has attribute
>> dependency-check="object" but wont lookup a collection of primitives such as int []PrimitiveDataTypeVariable even when the bean definition specified dependency-check="simple"
>>
>> http://static.springsource.org/spring/docs/1.2.9/reference/beans.html
>>
>> thanks,
>> Martin Gainty
>> ______________________________________________
>> Verzicht und Vertraulichkeitanmerkung/Note de déni et de confidentialité
>>
>> Diese Nachricht ist vertraulich. Sollten Sie nicht der vorgesehene Empfaenger sein, so bitten wir hoeflich um eine Mitteilung. Jede unbefugte Weiterleitung oder Fertigung einer Kopie ist unzulaessig. Diese Nachricht dient lediglich dem Austausch von Informationen und entfaltet keine rechtliche Bindungswirkung. Aufgrund der leichten Manipulierbarkeit von E-Mails koennen wir keine Haftung fuer den Inhalt uebernehmen.
>> Ce message est confidentiel et peut être privilégié. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire prévu, nous te demandons avec bonté que pour satisfaire informez l'expéditeur. N'importe quelle diffusion non autorisée ou la copie de ceci est interdite. Ce message sert à l'information seulement et n'aura pas n'importe quel effet légalement obligatoire. Étant donné que les email peuvent facilement être sujets à la manipulation, nous ne pouvons accepter aucune responsabilité pour le contenu fourni.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> From: josiah.d.haswell@hp.com
>>> To: user@commons.apache.org
>>> Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 18:42:29 +0000
>>> Subject: RE: [Primitives] Does anyone use this?
>>>
>>> Gnu Trove includes a set of benchmarks vs. the JCF. I don't understand why this is so controversial; a developer should be able to assess the suitability of a library for his or her purposes without it turning into a huge debate. If dependency-management is an issue, Trove is available from numerous Ivy/Maven repositories.
>>>
>>> Joe H. | HP Software
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Martin Gainty [mailto:mgainty@hotmail.com]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 11:41 AM
>>> To: user@commons.apache.org
>>> Subject: RE: [Primitives] Does anyone use this?
>>>
>>>
>>> Brian
>>>
>>> how does primitive collections implementation perform better than JDK collections?
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>> Martin
>>> ______________________________________________
>>> please do not alter or disrupt this transmission. thank you
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Primitives] Does anyone use this?
>>>> From: brian@pontarelli.com
>>>> Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 11:32:01 -0600
>>>> To: user@commons.apache.org
>>>>
>>>> I would assume once you get out of the autoboxing caches the performance will get even worse. It really depends on the application, but I've found a number of spots where primitive collections work much better than autoboxing and JDK collections.
>>>>
>>>> -bp
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 2, 2010, at 11:25 AM, James Carman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yet another dependency to add to the mix.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Cogen, David - 1008 - MITLL
>>>>> <co...@ll.mit.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>>> From: jcarman@carmanconsulting.com [jcarman@carmanconsulting.com] On Behalf Of James Carman [james@carmanconsulting.com]
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 12:30 PM
>>>>>> To: Commons Users List
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Primitives] Does anyone use this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Premature optimization with JDK5. I'd say stick to the JDK classes if
>>>>>> you can and only try to beef up space/performance if you need to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Normally I agree about evils of premature optimization. But ArrayListInt is practically a drop-in replacement for ArrayList<Integer> and I see no reason not to use it if it is supported and reliable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My test of 2 billion accesses (reads and writes) ran in 35% of the time when I used ArrayListInt vs. ArrayList<Integer>.
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
>>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [Primitives] Does anyone use this?
Posted by Brian Pontarelli <br...@pontarelli.com>.
I probably wouldn't use these collections in a factory context. If I'm concerned about speed and size, I'm going to create the primitive collection using the constructor and then use it directly. Adding in any factories, AOP, etc. is just going to add overhead.
The original issue is really whether or not the commons library is still active or if Trove is a better choice. I'd say either library will work and I've used both. Another thing to think about is your comfort with licenses. I prefer ASL over LGPL as a rule of thumb and Trove is LGPL. I tend to avoid anything with the letters G, P and L in the license. But if you can find something with BSD, that's the way to go.
;)
-bp
On Nov 2, 2010, at 1:24 PM, Martin Gainty wrote:
>
> also lookup methods from factories will reliably lookup ArrayList<BoxedPrimitiveDatatype> when bean definition has attribute
> dependency-check="object" but wont lookup a collection of primitives such as int []PrimitiveDataTypeVariable even when the bean definition specified dependency-check="simple"
>
> http://static.springsource.org/spring/docs/1.2.9/reference/beans.html
>
> thanks,
> Martin Gainty
> ______________________________________________
> Verzicht und Vertraulichkeitanmerkung/Note de déni et de confidentialité
>
> Diese Nachricht ist vertraulich. Sollten Sie nicht der vorgesehene Empfaenger sein, so bitten wir hoeflich um eine Mitteilung. Jede unbefugte Weiterleitung oder Fertigung einer Kopie ist unzulaessig. Diese Nachricht dient lediglich dem Austausch von Informationen und entfaltet keine rechtliche Bindungswirkung. Aufgrund der leichten Manipulierbarkeit von E-Mails koennen wir keine Haftung fuer den Inhalt uebernehmen.
> Ce message est confidentiel et peut être privilégié. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire prévu, nous te demandons avec bonté que pour satisfaire informez l'expéditeur. N'importe quelle diffusion non autorisée ou la copie de ceci est interdite. Ce message sert à l'information seulement et n'aura pas n'importe quel effet légalement obligatoire. Étant donné que les email peuvent facilement être sujets à la manipulation, nous ne pouvons accepter aucune responsabilité pour le contenu fourni.
>
>
>
>
>
>> From: josiah.d.haswell@hp.com
>> To: user@commons.apache.org
>> Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 18:42:29 +0000
>> Subject: RE: [Primitives] Does anyone use this?
>>
>> Gnu Trove includes a set of benchmarks vs. the JCF. I don't understand why this is so controversial; a developer should be able to assess the suitability of a library for his or her purposes without it turning into a huge debate. If dependency-management is an issue, Trove is available from numerous Ivy/Maven repositories.
>>
>> Joe H. | HP Software
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Martin Gainty [mailto:mgainty@hotmail.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 11:41 AM
>> To: user@commons.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: [Primitives] Does anyone use this?
>>
>>
>> Brian
>>
>> how does primitive collections implementation perform better than JDK collections?
>>
>> thanks,
>> Martin
>> ______________________________________________
>> please do not alter or disrupt this transmission. thank you
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Subject: Re: [Primitives] Does anyone use this?
>>> From: brian@pontarelli.com
>>> Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 11:32:01 -0600
>>> To: user@commons.apache.org
>>>
>>> I would assume once you get out of the autoboxing caches the performance will get even worse. It really depends on the application, but I've found a number of spots where primitive collections work much better than autoboxing and JDK collections.
>>>
>>> -bp
>>>
>>>
>>> On Nov 2, 2010, at 11:25 AM, James Carman wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yet another dependency to add to the mix.
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Cogen, David - 1008 - MITLL
>>>> <co...@ll.mit.edu> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>> From: jcarman@carmanconsulting.com [jcarman@carmanconsulting.com] On Behalf Of James Carman [james@carmanconsulting.com]
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 12:30 PM
>>>>> To: Commons Users List
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Primitives] Does anyone use this?
>>>>>
>>>>> Premature optimization with JDK5. I'd say stick to the JDK classes if
>>>>> you can and only try to beef up space/performance if you need to.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Normally I agree about evils of premature optimization. But ArrayListInt is practically a drop-in replacement for ArrayList<Integer> and I see no reason not to use it if it is supported and reliable.
>>>>>
>>>>> My test of 2 billion accesses (reads and writes) ran in 35% of the time when I used ArrayListInt vs. ArrayList<Integer>.
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
RE: [Primitives] Does anyone use this?
Posted by Martin Gainty <mg...@hotmail.com>.
also lookup methods from factories will reliably lookup ArrayList<BoxedPrimitiveDatatype> when bean definition has attribute
dependency-check="object" but wont lookup a collection of primitives such as int []PrimitiveDataTypeVariable even when the bean definition specified dependency-check="simple"
http://static.springsource.org/spring/docs/1.2.9/reference/beans.html
thanks,
Martin Gainty
______________________________________________
Verzicht und Vertraulichkeitanmerkung/Note de déni et de confidentialité
Diese Nachricht ist vertraulich. Sollten Sie nicht der vorgesehene Empfaenger sein, so bitten wir hoeflich um eine Mitteilung. Jede unbefugte Weiterleitung oder Fertigung einer Kopie ist unzulaessig. Diese Nachricht dient lediglich dem Austausch von Informationen und entfaltet keine rechtliche Bindungswirkung. Aufgrund der leichten Manipulierbarkeit von E-Mails koennen wir keine Haftung fuer den Inhalt uebernehmen.
Ce message est confidentiel et peut être privilégié. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire prévu, nous te demandons avec bonté que pour satisfaire informez l'expéditeur. N'importe quelle diffusion non autorisée ou la copie de ceci est interdite. Ce message sert à l'information seulement et n'aura pas n'importe quel effet légalement obligatoire. Étant donné que les email peuvent facilement être sujets à la manipulation, nous ne pouvons accepter aucune responsabilité pour le contenu fourni.
> From: josiah.d.haswell@hp.com
> To: user@commons.apache.org
> Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 18:42:29 +0000
> Subject: RE: [Primitives] Does anyone use this?
>
> Gnu Trove includes a set of benchmarks vs. the JCF. I don't understand why this is so controversial; a developer should be able to assess the suitability of a library for his or her purposes without it turning into a huge debate. If dependency-management is an issue, Trove is available from numerous Ivy/Maven repositories.
>
> Joe H. | HP Software
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Gainty [mailto:mgainty@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 11:41 AM
> To: user@commons.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [Primitives] Does anyone use this?
>
>
> Brian
>
> how does primitive collections implementation perform better than JDK collections?
>
> thanks,
> Martin
> ______________________________________________
> please do not alter or disrupt this transmission. thank you
>
>
>
>
>
> > Subject: Re: [Primitives] Does anyone use this?
> > From: brian@pontarelli.com
> > Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 11:32:01 -0600
> > To: user@commons.apache.org
> >
> > I would assume once you get out of the autoboxing caches the performance will get even worse. It really depends on the application, but I've found a number of spots where primitive collections work much better than autoboxing and JDK collections.
> >
> > -bp
> >
> >
> > On Nov 2, 2010, at 11:25 AM, James Carman wrote:
> >
> > > Yet another dependency to add to the mix.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Cogen, David - 1008 - MITLL
> > > <co...@ll.mit.edu> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> ________________________________________
> > >> From: jcarman@carmanconsulting.com [jcarman@carmanconsulting.com] On Behalf Of James Carman [james@carmanconsulting.com]
> > >> Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 12:30 PM
> > >> To: Commons Users List
> > >> Subject: Re: [Primitives] Does anyone use this?
> > >>
> > >> Premature optimization with JDK5. I'd say stick to the JDK classes if
> > >> you can and only try to beef up space/performance if you need to.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Normally I agree about evils of premature optimization. But ArrayListInt is practically a drop-in replacement for ArrayList<Integer> and I see no reason not to use it if it is supported and reliable.
> > >>
> > >> My test of 2 billion accesses (reads and writes) ran in 35% of the time when I used ArrayListInt vs. ArrayList<Integer>.
> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > >> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
> > >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
>
Re: RE: [Primitives] Does anyone use this?
Posted by James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>.
My point was that the Jdk classes can do this with type safety already and
box/inbox it for you automatically. If that works for you, then I wouldn't
suggest adding another dependency to the mix. If you absolutely need the
space/speed improvement , then by all means use it. Adding dependencies
opens you up to "jar hell" situations, though so I usually try to avoid it.
On Nov 2, 2010 2:43 PM, "Haswell, Joe" <jo...@hp.com> wrote:
RE: [Primitives] Does anyone use this?
Posted by "Haswell, Joe" <jo...@hp.com>.
Gnu Trove includes a set of benchmarks vs. the JCF. I don't understand why this is so controversial; a developer should be able to assess the suitability of a library for his or her purposes without it turning into a huge debate. If dependency-management is an issue, Trove is available from numerous Ivy/Maven repositories.
Joe H. | HP Software
-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Gainty [mailto:mgainty@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 11:41 AM
To: user@commons.apache.org
Subject: RE: [Primitives] Does anyone use this?
Brian
how does primitive collections implementation perform better than JDK collections?
thanks,
Martin
______________________________________________
please do not alter or disrupt this transmission. thank you
> Subject: Re: [Primitives] Does anyone use this?
> From: brian@pontarelli.com
> Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 11:32:01 -0600
> To: user@commons.apache.org
>
> I would assume once you get out of the autoboxing caches the performance will get even worse. It really depends on the application, but I've found a number of spots where primitive collections work much better than autoboxing and JDK collections.
>
> -bp
>
>
> On Nov 2, 2010, at 11:25 AM, James Carman wrote:
>
> > Yet another dependency to add to the mix.
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Cogen, David - 1008 - MITLL
> > <co...@ll.mit.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> ________________________________________
> >> From: jcarman@carmanconsulting.com [jcarman@carmanconsulting.com] On Behalf Of James Carman [james@carmanconsulting.com]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 12:30 PM
> >> To: Commons Users List
> >> Subject: Re: [Primitives] Does anyone use this?
> >>
> >> Premature optimization with JDK5. I'd say stick to the JDK classes if
> >> you can and only try to beef up space/performance if you need to.
> >>
> >>
> >> Normally I agree about evils of premature optimization. But ArrayListInt is practically a drop-in replacement for ArrayList<Integer> and I see no reason not to use it if it is supported and reliable.
> >>
> >> My test of 2 billion accesses (reads and writes) ran in 35% of the time when I used ArrayListInt vs. ArrayList<Integer>.
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
> >>
> >>
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [Primitives] Does anyone use this?
Posted by Brian Pontarelli <br...@pontarelli.com>.
The autoboxing process mostly. When ints are autoboxed and unboxed, there is a performance hit because it does method invocations and instantiation. Autoboxing for some values will hit a cache to reduce instantiation overhead, but I think that is only for numbers < 256.
I've found that Lists, Maps and Sets that work directly on primitives reduce overhead quite a bit by removing the instantiation for the autoboxing and the method invocation for unboxing.
Of course, it all depends on the size and volume of access. I have a Trie that used a Map<Character, Trie> internally and I switched it to a primitive char map and it increased performance by about 20-30% and reduced memory consumption as well.
-bp
On Nov 2, 2010, at 11:41 AM, Martin Gainty wrote:
>
> Brian
>
> how does primitive collections implementation perform better than JDK collections?
>
> thanks,
> Martin
> ______________________________________________
> please do not alter or disrupt this transmission. thank you
>
>
>
>
>
>> Subject: Re: [Primitives] Does anyone use this?
>> From: brian@pontarelli.com
>> Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 11:32:01 -0600
>> To: user@commons.apache.org
>>
>> I would assume once you get out of the autoboxing caches the performance will get even worse. It really depends on the application, but I've found a number of spots where primitive collections work much better than autoboxing and JDK collections.
>>
>> -bp
>>
>>
>> On Nov 2, 2010, at 11:25 AM, James Carman wrote:
>>
>>> Yet another dependency to add to the mix.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Cogen, David - 1008 - MITLL
>>> <co...@ll.mit.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________________
>>>> From: jcarman@carmanconsulting.com [jcarman@carmanconsulting.com] On Behalf Of James Carman [james@carmanconsulting.com]
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 12:30 PM
>>>> To: Commons Users List
>>>> Subject: Re: [Primitives] Does anyone use this?
>>>>
>>>> Premature optimization with JDK5. I'd say stick to the JDK classes if
>>>> you can and only try to beef up space/performance if you need to.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Normally I agree about evils of premature optimization. But ArrayListInt is practically a drop-in replacement for ArrayList<Integer> and I see no reason not to use it if it is supported and reliable.
>>>>
>>>> My test of 2 billion accesses (reads and writes) ran in 35% of the time when I used ArrayListInt vs. ArrayList<Integer>.
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
RE: [Primitives] Does anyone use this?
Posted by Martin Gainty <mg...@hotmail.com>.
Brian
how does primitive collections implementation perform better than JDK collections?
thanks,
Martin
______________________________________________
please do not alter or disrupt this transmission. thank you
> Subject: Re: [Primitives] Does anyone use this?
> From: brian@pontarelli.com
> Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 11:32:01 -0600
> To: user@commons.apache.org
>
> I would assume once you get out of the autoboxing caches the performance will get even worse. It really depends on the application, but I've found a number of spots where primitive collections work much better than autoboxing and JDK collections.
>
> -bp
>
>
> On Nov 2, 2010, at 11:25 AM, James Carman wrote:
>
> > Yet another dependency to add to the mix.
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Cogen, David - 1008 - MITLL
> > <co...@ll.mit.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> ________________________________________
> >> From: jcarman@carmanconsulting.com [jcarman@carmanconsulting.com] On Behalf Of James Carman [james@carmanconsulting.com]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 12:30 PM
> >> To: Commons Users List
> >> Subject: Re: [Primitives] Does anyone use this?
> >>
> >> Premature optimization with JDK5. I'd say stick to the JDK classes if
> >> you can and only try to beef up space/performance if you need to.
> >>
> >>
> >> Normally I agree about evils of premature optimization. But ArrayListInt is practically a drop-in replacement for ArrayList<Integer> and I see no reason not to use it if it is supported and reliable.
> >>
> >> My test of 2 billion accesses (reads and writes) ran in 35% of the time when I used ArrayListInt vs. ArrayList<Integer>.
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
> >>
> >>
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
>
Re: [Primitives] Does anyone use this?
Posted by Brian Pontarelli <br...@pontarelli.com>.
I would assume once you get out of the autoboxing caches the performance will get even worse. It really depends on the application, but I've found a number of spots where primitive collections work much better than autoboxing and JDK collections.
-bp
On Nov 2, 2010, at 11:25 AM, James Carman wrote:
> Yet another dependency to add to the mix.
>
> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Cogen, David - 1008 - MITLL
> <co...@ll.mit.edu> wrote:
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: jcarman@carmanconsulting.com [jcarman@carmanconsulting.com] On Behalf Of James Carman [james@carmanconsulting.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 12:30 PM
>> To: Commons Users List
>> Subject: Re: [Primitives] Does anyone use this?
>>
>> Premature optimization with JDK5. I'd say stick to the JDK classes if
>> you can and only try to beef up space/performance if you need to.
>>
>>
>> Normally I agree about evils of premature optimization. But ArrayListInt is practically a drop-in replacement for ArrayList<Integer> and I see no reason not to use it if it is supported and reliable.
>>
>> My test of 2 billion accesses (reads and writes) ran in 35% of the time when I used ArrayListInt vs. ArrayList<Integer>.
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [Primitives] Does anyone use this?
Posted by James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>.
Yet another dependency to add to the mix.
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Cogen, David - 1008 - MITLL
<co...@ll.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> ________________________________________
> From: jcarman@carmanconsulting.com [jcarman@carmanconsulting.com] On Behalf Of James Carman [james@carmanconsulting.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 12:30 PM
> To: Commons Users List
> Subject: Re: [Primitives] Does anyone use this?
>
> Premature optimization with JDK5. I'd say stick to the JDK classes if
> you can and only try to beef up space/performance if you need to.
>
>
> Normally I agree about evils of premature optimization. But ArrayListInt is practically a drop-in replacement for ArrayList<Integer> and I see no reason not to use it if it is supported and reliable.
>
> My test of 2 billion accesses (reads and writes) ran in 35% of the time when I used ArrayListInt vs. ArrayList<Integer>.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
RE: [Primitives] Does anyone use this?
Posted by "Cogen, David - 1008 - MITLL" <co...@ll.mit.edu>.
________________________________________
From: jcarman@carmanconsulting.com [jcarman@carmanconsulting.com] On Behalf Of James Carman [james@carmanconsulting.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 12:30 PM
To: Commons Users List
Subject: Re: [Primitives] Does anyone use this?
Premature optimization with JDK5. I'd say stick to the JDK classes if
you can and only try to beef up space/performance if you need to.
Normally I agree about evils of premature optimization. But ArrayListInt is practically a drop-in replacement for ArrayList<Integer> and I see no reason not to use it if it is supported and reliable.
My test of 2 billion accesses (reads and writes) ran in 35% of the time when I used ArrayListInt vs. ArrayList<Integer>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [Primitives] Does anyone use this?
Posted by James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>.
Premature optimization with JDK5. I'd say stick to the JDK classes if
you can and only try to beef up space/performance if you need to.
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Haswell, Joe <jo...@hp.com> wrote:
> Consider using Gnu Trove (http://trove4j.sourceforge.net/).
>
> Joe H. | HP Software
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Cogen [mailto:cogen@ll.mit.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 5:34 AM
> To: Commons Users List
> Subject: [Primitives] Does anyone use this?
>
> I am considering using Commons Primitives but I note that it is at
> release 1.0 and hasn't changed for 7 years. Should I be using it? Is it
> considered reliable? I am interested in the primitive array types like
> ArrayIntList.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
RE: [Primitives] Does anyone use this?
Posted by "Haswell, Joe" <jo...@hp.com>.
Consider using Gnu Trove (http://trove4j.sourceforge.net/).
Joe H. | HP Software
-----Original Message-----
From: David Cogen [mailto:cogen@ll.mit.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 5:34 AM
To: Commons Users List
Subject: [Primitives] Does anyone use this?
I am considering using Commons Primitives but I note that it is at
release 1.0 and hasn't changed for 7 years. Should I be using it? Is it
considered reliable? I am interested in the primitive array types like
ArrayIntList.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org