On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 9:09 PM, John Tamplin <j...@google.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 7:50 PM, Scott Blum <sco...@google.com> wrote: > >> How about this instead? I think it makes sense to tie the reordering to >> construction of the Precompilation, because that's when it actually matters. >> And immutable > mutable. > > > I am ok with it, but the cost of a deep copy plus an extra array copy (we > already create an array from the collection) seems high for little benefit. > Granted, there should never be more than a few thousand permutations, but it > still seems excessive. > I'm pretty confident the cost of the extra copy will be insignificant. I can think of a number of things that should dwarf it. > If you want to go with this approach, I think it would probably be better > to pass merged.values() to Precompilation and have it generate the > re-ordered array there from the collection, rather than create an array only > to immediately throw it away and create a new one in the right order. > Sounds good to me. Want me to respin it, or you? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
