On 7 June 2012 21:11, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 3:56 AM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Not sure I follow this. Why would an interface use extra memory? >> I can see that it might add a bit more to the static size of a class, >> but why would it add more to each instance of a class that uses it? >> > > It's not the interface itself. It's the fact that you have to have > more objects loaded into memory when you use the interface-based > approach. For example, if BCEL has some object that represents a > class' metadata, then we'll have to put some "adapter" object in front > of it that implements our metadata API interface and knows how to > speak BCEL-speak to extract the information.
Yes, but again, surely there won't be all that many such objects? I think some tests should be done of the two approaches before deciding to abandon the interface-based design. > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
