FYI, I just did a little non-scientific testing on the pre / post StringBuilder changes. I used a production application that is based on Mach-II and these are the times for (re)loading the framework.
Before StringBuilder was added: 1. 6,739ms. 2. 5,680ms. 3. 4,674ms. 4. 4,687ms. 5. 4,341ms. Avg: 5,224ms. After StringBuilder was added: 1. 4,014ms 2. 4,120ms. 3. 4,272ms. 4. 4,123ms. 5. 3,920ms. Avg: 4,090ms. As you can see, StringBuilder is faster (because of the reduced synchronizations). These changes made my application start up times for this application 21.7% faster! Now I understand that your mileage will vary depending on your construction of your application, but I think this was a really a great performance boost for the little amount of time required to discover, discuss and implement it. Best, Peter On Sep 28, 11:10 am, "Peter J. Farrell" <[email protected]> wrote: > I must say I was inspired by the words of John Muir -- the great > environmentalist and father of the Sierra Club. > > Matthew Woodward said the following on 09/28/2009 09:36 AM: > > > On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 08:53:08 +0100, "Alan Williamson (aw1)" > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> Open BlueDragon be the people's CFML engine. > > >> Have we found our new tagline? > > > Love it! > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Open BlueDragon Public Mailing List http://groups.google.com/group/openbd?hl=en official site @ http://www.openbluedragon.org/ !! save a network - trim replies before posting !! -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
