Re: Candidates for cleanup

[Mark Beardsley <ma...@tiscali.co.uk>]

I know that I am no longer involved in the project and think you will already
have considered this. However, I did feel it worthwhile mentioning that
StringBuilder is not thread safe (StringBuffer is of course) and that this
is where the time savings accrue. Do not know if this matters but it might
mitigate against a blanket substitution of StringBuilder for StringBuffer.

Yours

Mark B

--
View this message in context: http://apache-poi.1045710.n5.nabble.com/Candidates-for-cleanup-tp4649896p4661313.html
Sent from the POI - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@poi.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@poi.apache.org

Re: Candidates for cleanup

[Kalyan Dev <ka...@gmail.com>]

Hi Mark,

I completely agree with your concern. However, All the StringBuffer to
StringBuilder changes were in toString() implementation of the class. This
human readable string might just be used mostly in Loggers which is not of
high significance (carrying transactional data).

-Kalyan

On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Mark Beardsley <ma...@tiscali.co.uk>wrote:

> I know that I am no longer involved in the project and think you will
> already
> have considered this. However, I did feel it worthwhile mentioning that
> StringBuilder is not thread safe (StringBuffer is of course) and that this
> is where the time savings accrue. Do not know if this matters but it might
> mitigate against a blanket substitution of StringBuilder for StringBuffer.
>
> Yours
>
> Mark B
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://apache-poi.1045710.n5.nabble.com/Candidates-for-cleanup-tp4649896p4661313.html
> Sent from the POI - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@poi.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@poi.apache.org
>
>