--- On Thu, 1/28/10, Adam Heath <doo...@brainfood.com> wrote: > From: Adam Heath <doo...@brainfood.com> > Subject: Re: Discussion: FlexibleStringExpander refactor > To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org > Date: Thursday, January 28, 2010, 4:39 PM > 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.
Agreed - the cached expressions are not the memory wasters. The example I gave does not get cached.
