Adrian Crum wrote: > Adam Heath wrote: >> 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. > > I never assume. I evaluated it back when I did the original refactor - > which was done, by the way, for the sole purpose of reducing memory use.
Well, I just ran trunk, went straight to webtools, artifact info(got an exception), then dumped the heap with jmap, and looked at the file with heap analyzer. I see 4749 instances in FSE's cache. All the instances together take up only 426k of memory. That's not a whole lot, considering that the total heap size of this dump is 200M. I would say that doing this rewrite, if the goal is to reduce memory, is not worth. The gains don't justify the means. However, if you want to do the rewrite to make the code more asthetic, more perfect, then that is ok, and I like the api you suggested.
