t;>Santhosh
>>
>>From: Daan Hoogland [daan.hoogl...@gmail.com]
>>Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2014 8:13 AM
>>To: Santhosh Edukulla
>>Cc: Abhinandan Prateek; cloudstack
>>Subject: Re: Review Request 23194: Fixed Coverity reported p
[daan.hoogl...@gmail.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2014 8:13 AM
>To: Santhosh Edukulla
>Cc: Abhinandan Prateek; cloudstack
>Subject: Re: Review Request 23194: Fixed Coverity reported performance
>issues
>
>I can't seem to put a comment in this review request, hence a mail:
&
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/23194/#review47176
---
Can you attach a bug id ? Preferably the umbrella ticket id for cove
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/23194/#review47136
---
Ship it!
97d296bfbd328f2c45e5be22c769447b7aa006df
- daan Hoogland
e push
> accordingly.
>
> Santhosh
>
> From: Daan Hoogland [daan.hoogl...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2014 9:38 AM
> To: Santhosh Edukulla
> Cc: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Review Request 23194: Fixed Coverity reported
AM
To: Santhosh Edukulla
Cc: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: Review Request 23194: Fixed Coverity reported performance issues
I like the concise syntax, not demanding.
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 3:32 PM, Santhosh Edukulla
wrote:
> Sorry, ver7 docs:
> http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/do
duku...@citrix.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2014 9:20 AM
> To: Daan Hoogland
> Cc: Abhinandan Prateek; cloudstack
> Subject: RE: Review Request 23194: Fixed Coverity reported performance issues
>
> Daan,
>
> It seems equivalent, as per docs,
>
> "Copies all of the
8:38 AM
To: Santhosh Edukulla
Cc: Abhinandan Prateek; cloudstack
Subject: Re: Review Request 23194: Fixed Coverity reported performance issues
I think putAll is more efficient.
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Santhosh Edukulla
wrote:
> Daan,
>
> You are added as reviewer, not sure why com
cloudstack
Subject: Re: Review Request 23194: Fixed Coverity reported performance issues
I think putAll is more efficient.
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Santhosh Edukulla
wrote:
> Daan,
>
> You are added as reviewer, not sure why comments were disabled.
>
> Do you see it as
t; Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2014 8:13 AM
> To: Santhosh Edukulla
> Cc: Abhinandan Prateek; cloudstack
> Subject: Re: Review Request 23194: Fixed Coverity reported performance issues
>
> I can't seem to put a comment in this review request, hence a mail:
>
> why not use
provides same
efficiency as the current form we have.
Santhosh
From: Daan Hoogland [daan.hoogl...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2014 8:13 AM
To: Santhosh Edukulla
Cc: Abhinandan Prateek; cloudstack
Subject: Re: Review Request 23194: Fixed Coverity reported
I can't seem to put a comment in this review request, hence a mail:
why not use calls to putAll instead of the iteration over all elements?
(only valid for the first few iteration, where no further processing is
done on the Entry)
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Santhosh Edukulla <
santhosh.eduk
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/23194/
---
Review request for cloudstack, Abhinandan Prateek and daan Hoogland.
Bugs: cove
13 matches
Mail list logo
