On Tuesday 29 April 2008, Fred Dushin wrote:
> Performance measurements would certainly be in order, if a change were
> to occur.
>
> What I'm more concerned about is flushing out any ordering assumptions
> in collections that are inherently unordered. That, and
> reproducibility of errors on Mac/
Performance measurements would certainly be in order, if a change were
to occur.
What I'm more concerned about is flushing out any ordering assumptions
in collections that are inherently unordered. That, and
reproducibility of errors on Mac/Windows/Linux/etc
On Apr 29, 2008, at 10:26 AM,
On Tuesday 29 April 2008, Fred Dushin wrote:
> Is there a reason hashed collections are used, almost exclusively, in
> CXF? Even in cases where collections are predictably small,
> Hash(Maps| Sets) almost always win out over their sortable cousins in
> the java.util namespace, and this, even when
Fred,
I'd be happy to profile any test case in which you think such a case would
help. I'm not really spun up on profiling for working set as opposed to CPU,
but I'm game to try.
--benson
Is there a reason hashed collections are used, almost exclusively, in
CXF? Even in cases where collections are predictably small, Hash(Maps|
Sets) almost always win out over their sortable cousins in the
java.util namespace, and this, even when the keys are sortable.
Is there a technical re
