On 6/12/07, Eran Chinthaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Ajith Ranabahu wrote:
> IIRC the flip side of the same argument was brought as a reason.
> Hashtables are slower than hashmaps due to the synching.
> In how many places do we have to synch if we just use the map ? if
> there are many I suggest we use the hashtable. However if there are
> only one or two place where we have to sync then I suggest we keep the
> maps for performance reasons.
At the same time we haven't seen any problems so far using hashmaps. So
why do we wanna fix it for some futuristic reason. I would wait and use
hashmap just for performance reasons and wait till anything comes up.
Chinthaka
From what i know you would be lucky if you find the bug and actually
relate it to this synchronization problem. So chances are, the effects
of this bug would never get reported cos its almost impossible to
reproduce. I would fix synchronization bugs whenever i find one.
My two cents.
--
Chathura Herath
http://people.apache.org/~chathura/
http://chathurah.blogspot.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
