Re: Cost of instantiating -- JAVA400-L

× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.

Subject: Re: Cost of instantiating
From: "Paul Morgan" <pmorgan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 14:40:31 -0400
List-archive: <http://archive.midrange.com/java400-l>
List-help: <mailto:java400-l-request@midrange.com?subject=help>
List-id: Java Programming on and around the iSeries / AS400 <java400-l.midrange.com>
List-post: <mailto:java400-l@midrange.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/java400-l>, <mailto:java400-l-request@midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/java400-l>, <mailto:java400-l-request@midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>

Joe,

Sure, you can always make a factory cache for your own objects.  Getting the
caching ability from the JVM using the new opcode would be better - no code
changes.  Same code but better JVM gives better performance.

80/20 rule.  Most of the objects created are likely simple things like
Integer(0) or String("").

Paul

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.