On Mon, 2004-04-05 at 07:14, Alex Karasulu wrote: > Hi, > > I was just looking at the digester code as I was writing another incarnation > of the digester pattern and noticed the pop() and peek() methods do not need > to catch exceptions. It is just cheaper to check the size of the stack > before the pop() or peek() calls and return null instead of just making that > call surrounded by a catch block. > > You guys want me to just make and commit these changes? It's not really a > big deal but thought I'd let you guys know about it.
I don't mind. I don't see any harm, but don't see much benefit either. What is the performance of a try/catch clause when exceptions aren't thrown, vs an "if (stack.isEmpty())" which is *always* executed? Is it truly "cheaper" to use the if? Of course the current exception-based approach is thread-safe, while an if-based approach is not, though that is not an issue here. Regards, Simon --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
