Adrian Crum wrote: > Adam Heath wrote: >> Adrian Crum wrote: >>> When I refactored FlexibleStringExpander.java a while ago (rev 687442), >>> there were things I wanted to improve but couldn't - because I wanted to >>> maintain backward-compatibility. >>> >>> Adam's recent memory-saving efforts reminded me of one of the things I >>> wanted to change in FlexibleStringExpander.java - I wanted to make the >>> object more lightweight. >>> >>> OFBiz can hold anywhere from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands >>> of these objects in memory, so an object size reduction could be >>> beneficial. >>> >>> With that under consideration, I would like to do a little more work on >>> the class. What I have in mind is to keep the existing API the same - to >>> preserve backward compatibility - but add an interface so that we can >>> make gradual changes to framework code that will improve memory use. >> >> Er, no. Rewrites for the sole purpose of reducing memory are bad. >> Try to profile ofbiz first. All the stuff I recently did was the >> direct outcome of inspecting memory dumps. > > So those rewrites were NOT for the sole purpose of reducing memory?
Er, I mean to say that don't just assume that you need to rewwrite it. I'm looking at the memory usage in heap analyzer right now.
