On 12 Dec 2001, Christian Nentwich wrote:
> Writing a native ancestor iterator didn't help me much, so I switched
> the profile on. Here's an excerpt of the top number of function calls in
> my application:
>
> count callee caller time
> 241550 java/util/ArrayList.RangeCheck(I)V
> java/util/ArrayList.get(I)Ljava/lang/Object; 0
> 232769 org/jaxen/dom/DocumentNavigator$NodeIterator.hasNext()Z
> org/jaxen/expr/DefaultLocationPath.evaluate(Lorg/jaxen/Context;)Ljava/lang/Object; 0
> 222591
> org/apache/xerces/dom/ChildNode.getNextSibling()Lorg/w3c/dom/Node;
> org/jaxen/dom/DocumentNavigator$1.getNextNode(Lorg/w3c/dom/Node;)Lorg/w3c/dom/Node; 0
> 222588
> org/jaxen/dom/DocumentNavigator$1.getNextNode(Lorg/w3c/dom/Node;)Lorg/w3c/dom/Node;
>org/jaxen/dom/DocumentNavigator$NodeIterator.next()Ljava/lang/Object; 0
> 179553
>
>org/jaxen/expr/DefaultNameStep.matches(Ljava/lang/Object;Lorg/jaxen/ContextSupport;)Z
>org/jaxen/expr/DefaultLocationPath.evaluate(Lorg/jaxen/Context;)Ljava/lang/Object; 0
>
> do we really need a range-checked ArrayList in all the classes? What
> will happen if I change all the new ArrayList() calls to new Vector()
> instead ? (Vector implements the List interface).
>
> Any concerns?
It was my understanding that Vector was a jdk-1.1 collection which has
synchronization overhead, so you're acquiring and releasing locks left
and right.
ArrayList, I thought, was simply the non-synchronized version made
available through the Java-2 Collections API.
Though, if a Vector is more efficient than an ArrayList, then by all
means, that's fine by me. I'm not too picky about my collections.
-bob
_______________________________________________
Jaxen-interest mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jaxen-interest
