Hi, Did you have a look to java 5 documentation ? : you'll find interesting information in Queue interface and LinkedList implementation. I think there are also many open-source projects related to Cache management. With java 5 generics cast is no more necessary. My advices : - read the javadoc first - use java 5 (this subject has not been discussed for a long time, but my personnal feeling is that it is now time to use java 5, specially for a new important project / feature) - do-it yourself is good to learn, but for general problems and performance issues, existing libs is often a better choice :-)
My two cents Michaël Sunburned Surveyor a écrit : > I've been doing some more work on my FeatureCache implementation. I am > currently designing a "buffer" that will hold a set number of features > from the feature cache in memory. This will increase performance when > a user is working with the same small group of features. The maximum > number of features in the buffer will be set by the user and can be > based on RAM of the computer running OpenJUMP and the user's need for > speed. (A default maximum feature count will be provided.) > > I need some help from our more experienced Java developers. Larry > seems to have a nack for performance issues, so perhaps he will have > some advice. Any suggestion are welocome. :] > > I'm trying to figure what type of collection/container to use for the > buffer. I took a look at the existing Java Collection implementations, > and I don't see one that will work out of the box. I need a > First-In-First-Out collection whose growth I can limit. I think I have > three choices for the buffer's container: > > [1] Extend and modify an existing Collection implementation. > [2] Write my own implementation of the Collection interface that > behaves the way I need it to. > [3] Write an implemenation that uses an array internally, works > directly with objects that implement the Feature interface, but that > does not implement Collection. > > Option 1 is probably the easiest, but I don't think it will be the > most efficient or fast. Option #2 is great from a reusability > standpoint, but it is a lot more work. I think Option 3 will be the > fastest and most efficient, becuase I won't have to make object casts, > but it will be more work than Option 1. > > How much speed will I gain if I avoid the Collection interface and the > resulting casts from Object to Feature? Do you think Option 2 will be > significantly faster? > > I think speed will be critical for this part of the FeatureCache > implementation. The only part more critical from a speed point of view > will be the binary format reader/writer. > > Thanks, > > The Sunburned Surveyor > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT >Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your >opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash >http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >Jump-pilot-devel mailing list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jump-pilot-devel > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Jump-pilot-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jump-pilot-devel
