RE: [Primitives] Does anyone use this?
Consider using Gnu Trove (http://trove4j.sourceforge.net/). Joe H. | HP Software -Original Message- From: David Cogen [mailto:co...@ll.mit.edu] Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 5:34 AM To: Commons Users List Subject: [Primitives] Does anyone use this? I am considering using Commons Primitives but I note that it is at release 1.0 and hasn't changed for 7 years. Should I be using it? Is it considered reliable? I am interested in the primitive array types like ArrayIntList. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: user-h...@commons.apache.org
Re: [Primitives] Does anyone use this?
Premature optimization with JDK5. I'd say stick to the JDK classes if you can and only try to beef up space/performance if you need to. On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Haswell, Joe josiah.d.hasw...@hp.com wrote: Consider using Gnu Trove (http://trove4j.sourceforge.net/). Joe H. | HP Software -Original Message- From: David Cogen [mailto:co...@ll.mit.edu] Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 5:34 AM To: Commons Users List Subject: [Primitives] Does anyone use this? I am considering using Commons Primitives but I note that it is at release 1.0 and hasn't changed for 7 years. Should I be using it? Is it considered reliable? I am interested in the primitive array types like ArrayIntList. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: user-h...@commons.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: user-h...@commons.apache.org
Re: [Primitives] Does anyone use this?
Yet another dependency to add to the mix. On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Cogen, David - 1008 - MITLL co...@ll.mit.edu wrote: From: jcar...@carmanconsulting.com [jcar...@carmanconsulting.com] On Behalf Of James Carman [ja...@carmanconsulting.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 12:30 PM To: Commons Users List Subject: Re: [Primitives] Does anyone use this? Premature optimization with JDK5. I'd say stick to the JDK classes if you can and only try to beef up space/performance if you need to. Normally I agree about evils of premature optimization. But ArrayListInt is practically a drop-in replacement for ArrayListInteger and I see no reason not to use it if it is supported and reliable. My test of 2 billion accesses (reads and writes) ran in 35% of the time when I used ArrayListInt vs. ArrayListInteger. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: user-h...@commons.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: user-h...@commons.apache.org
Re: [Primitives] Does anyone use this?
I would assume once you get out of the autoboxing caches the performance will get even worse. It really depends on the application, but I've found a number of spots where primitive collections work much better than autoboxing and JDK collections. -bp On Nov 2, 2010, at 11:25 AM, James Carman wrote: Yet another dependency to add to the mix. On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Cogen, David - 1008 - MITLL co...@ll.mit.edu wrote: From: jcar...@carmanconsulting.com [jcar...@carmanconsulting.com] On Behalf Of James Carman [ja...@carmanconsulting.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 12:30 PM To: Commons Users List Subject: Re: [Primitives] Does anyone use this? Premature optimization with JDK5. I'd say stick to the JDK classes if you can and only try to beef up space/performance if you need to. Normally I agree about evils of premature optimization. But ArrayListInt is practically a drop-in replacement for ArrayListInteger and I see no reason not to use it if it is supported and reliable. My test of 2 billion accesses (reads and writes) ran in 35% of the time when I used ArrayListInt vs. ArrayListInteger. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: user-h...@commons.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: user-h...@commons.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: user-h...@commons.apache.org
RE: [Primitives] Does anyone use this?
Brian how does primitive collections implementation perform better than JDK collections? thanks, Martin __ please do not alter or disrupt this transmission. thank you Subject: Re: [Primitives] Does anyone use this? From: br...@pontarelli.com Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 11:32:01 -0600 To: user@commons.apache.org I would assume once you get out of the autoboxing caches the performance will get even worse. It really depends on the application, but I've found a number of spots where primitive collections work much better than autoboxing and JDK collections. -bp On Nov 2, 2010, at 11:25 AM, James Carman wrote: Yet another dependency to add to the mix. On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Cogen, David - 1008 - MITLL co...@ll.mit.edu wrote: From: jcar...@carmanconsulting.com [jcar...@carmanconsulting.com] On Behalf Of James Carman [ja...@carmanconsulting.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 12:30 PM To: Commons Users List Subject: Re: [Primitives] Does anyone use this? Premature optimization with JDK5. I'd say stick to the JDK classes if you can and only try to beef up space/performance if you need to. Normally I agree about evils of premature optimization. But ArrayListInt is practically a drop-in replacement for ArrayListInteger and I see no reason not to use it if it is supported and reliable. My test of 2 billion accesses (reads and writes) ran in 35% of the time when I used ArrayListInt vs. ArrayListInteger. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: user-h...@commons.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: user-h...@commons.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: user-h...@commons.apache.org
Re: [Primitives] Does anyone use this?
The autoboxing process mostly. When ints are autoboxed and unboxed, there is a performance hit because it does method invocations and instantiation. Autoboxing for some values will hit a cache to reduce instantiation overhead, but I think that is only for numbers 256. I've found that Lists, Maps and Sets that work directly on primitives reduce overhead quite a bit by removing the instantiation for the autoboxing and the method invocation for unboxing. Of course, it all depends on the size and volume of access. I have a Trie that used a MapCharacter, Trie internally and I switched it to a primitive char map and it increased performance by about 20-30% and reduced memory consumption as well. -bp On Nov 2, 2010, at 11:41 AM, Martin Gainty wrote: Brian how does primitive collections implementation perform better than JDK collections? thanks, Martin __ please do not alter or disrupt this transmission. thank you Subject: Re: [Primitives] Does anyone use this? From: br...@pontarelli.com Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 11:32:01 -0600 To: user@commons.apache.org I would assume once you get out of the autoboxing caches the performance will get even worse. It really depends on the application, but I've found a number of spots where primitive collections work much better than autoboxing and JDK collections. -bp On Nov 2, 2010, at 11:25 AM, James Carman wrote: Yet another dependency to add to the mix. On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Cogen, David - 1008 - MITLL co...@ll.mit.edu wrote: From: jcar...@carmanconsulting.com [jcar...@carmanconsulting.com] On Behalf Of James Carman [ja...@carmanconsulting.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 12:30 PM To: Commons Users List Subject: Re: [Primitives] Does anyone use this? Premature optimization with JDK5. I'd say stick to the JDK classes if you can and only try to beef up space/performance if you need to. Normally I agree about evils of premature optimization. But ArrayListInt is practically a drop-in replacement for ArrayListInteger and I see no reason not to use it if it is supported and reliable. My test of 2 billion accesses (reads and writes) ran in 35% of the time when I used ArrayListInt vs. ArrayListInteger. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: user-h...@commons.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: user-h...@commons.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: user-h...@commons.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: user-h...@commons.apache.org
RE: [Primitives] Does anyone use this?
Gnu Trove includes a set of benchmarks vs. the JCF. I don't understand why this is so controversial; a developer should be able to assess the suitability of a library for his or her purposes without it turning into a huge debate. If dependency-management is an issue, Trove is available from numerous Ivy/Maven repositories. Joe H. | HP Software -Original Message- From: Martin Gainty [mailto:mgai...@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 11:41 AM To: user@commons.apache.org Subject: RE: [Primitives] Does anyone use this? Brian how does primitive collections implementation perform better than JDK collections? thanks, Martin __ please do not alter or disrupt this transmission. thank you Subject: Re: [Primitives] Does anyone use this? From: br...@pontarelli.com Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 11:32:01 -0600 To: user@commons.apache.org I would assume once you get out of the autoboxing caches the performance will get even worse. It really depends on the application, but I've found a number of spots where primitive collections work much better than autoboxing and JDK collections. -bp On Nov 2, 2010, at 11:25 AM, James Carman wrote: Yet another dependency to add to the mix. On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Cogen, David - 1008 - MITLL co...@ll.mit.edu wrote: From: jcar...@carmanconsulting.com [jcar...@carmanconsulting.com] On Behalf Of James Carman [ja...@carmanconsulting.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 12:30 PM To: Commons Users List Subject: Re: [Primitives] Does anyone use this? Premature optimization with JDK5. I'd say stick to the JDK classes if you can and only try to beef up space/performance if you need to. Normally I agree about evils of premature optimization. But ArrayListInt is practically a drop-in replacement for ArrayListInteger and I see no reason not to use it if it is supported and reliable. My test of 2 billion accesses (reads and writes) ran in 35% of the time when I used ArrayListInt vs. ArrayListInteger. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: user-h...@commons.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: user-h...@commons.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: user-h...@commons.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: user-h...@commons.apache.org
Re: RE: [Primitives] Does anyone use this?
My point was that the Jdk classes can do this with type safety already and box/inbox it for you automatically. If that works for you, then I wouldn't suggest adding another dependency to the mix. If you absolutely need the space/speed improvement , then by all means use it. Adding dependencies opens you up to jar hell situations, though so I usually try to avoid it. On Nov 2, 2010 2:43 PM, Haswell, Joe josiah.d.hasw...@hp.com wrote:
RE: [Primitives] Does anyone use this?
also lookup methods from factories will reliably lookup ArrayListBoxedPrimitiveDatatype when bean definition has attribute dependency-check=object but wont lookup a collection of primitives such as int []PrimitiveDataTypeVariable even when the bean definition specified dependency-check=simple http://static.springsource.org/spring/docs/1.2.9/reference/beans.html thanks, Martin Gainty __ Verzicht und Vertraulichkeitanmerkung/Note de déni et de confidentialité Diese Nachricht ist vertraulich. Sollten Sie nicht der vorgesehene Empfaenger sein, so bitten wir hoeflich um eine Mitteilung. Jede unbefugte Weiterleitung oder Fertigung einer Kopie ist unzulaessig. Diese Nachricht dient lediglich dem Austausch von Informationen und entfaltet keine rechtliche Bindungswirkung. Aufgrund der leichten Manipulierbarkeit von E-Mails koennen wir keine Haftung fuer den Inhalt uebernehmen. Ce message est confidentiel et peut être privilégié. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire prévu, nous te demandons avec bonté que pour satisfaire informez l'expéditeur. N'importe quelle diffusion non autorisée ou la copie de ceci est interdite. Ce message sert à l'information seulement et n'aura pas n'importe quel effet légalement obligatoire. Étant donné que les email peuvent facilement être sujets à la manipulation, nous ne pouvons accepter aucune responsabilité pour le contenu fourni. From: josiah.d.hasw...@hp.com To: user@commons.apache.org Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 18:42:29 + Subject: RE: [Primitives] Does anyone use this? Gnu Trove includes a set of benchmarks vs. the JCF. I don't understand why this is so controversial; a developer should be able to assess the suitability of a library for his or her purposes without it turning into a huge debate. If dependency-management is an issue, Trove is available from numerous Ivy/Maven repositories. Joe H. | HP Software -Original Message- From: Martin Gainty [mailto:mgai...@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 11:41 AM To: user@commons.apache.org Subject: RE: [Primitives] Does anyone use this? Brian how does primitive collections implementation perform better than JDK collections? thanks, Martin __ please do not alter or disrupt this transmission. thank you Subject: Re: [Primitives] Does anyone use this? From: br...@pontarelli.com Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 11:32:01 -0600 To: user@commons.apache.org I would assume once you get out of the autoboxing caches the performance will get even worse. It really depends on the application, but I've found a number of spots where primitive collections work much better than autoboxing and JDK collections. -bp On Nov 2, 2010, at 11:25 AM, James Carman wrote: Yet another dependency to add to the mix. On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Cogen, David - 1008 - MITLL co...@ll.mit.edu wrote: From: jcar...@carmanconsulting.com [jcar...@carmanconsulting.com] On Behalf Of James Carman [ja...@carmanconsulting.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 12:30 PM To: Commons Users List Subject: Re: [Primitives] Does anyone use this? Premature optimization with JDK5. I'd say stick to the JDK classes if you can and only try to beef up space/performance if you need to. Normally I agree about evils of premature optimization. But ArrayListInt is practically a drop-in replacement for ArrayListInteger and I see no reason not to use it if it is supported and reliable. My test of 2 billion accesses (reads and writes) ran in 35% of the time when I used ArrayListInt vs. ArrayListInteger. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: user-h...@commons.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: user-h...@commons.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: user-h...@commons.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: user-h...@commons.apache.org
XMLPropertyListConfiguration and saving arrays
Hi! I am attempting to save out plist files from some groovy code, and I am not having much success when it comes to arrays. Instead of values wrapped in array tags, I get a series of key-value pairs. Here is my code (hopefully it should be close enough to java to be clear):groovy import org.apache.commons.configuration.plist.*groovy def bob = new XMLPropertyListConfiguration()groovy bob.addProperty("key", "stringvalue")groovy bob.addProperty("numbers", 12345)groovy bob.addProperty("settings", ['height': 20, 'width': 40, 'scale':'very yes'])groovy bob.addProperty("things", ['chair', 'hat', 'door'])groovy bob.save(System.out)?xml version="1.0"?!DOCTYPE plist SYSTEM "file://localhost/System/Library/DTDs/PropertyList.dtd"plist version="1.0" dict keykey/key stringstringvalue/string keynumbers/key integer12345/integer keysettings/key dict keyheight/key integer20/integer keywidth/key integer40/integer keyscale/key stringvery yes/string /dict keythings/key stringchair/string keythings/key stringhat/string keythings/key stringdoor/string /dict/plistI would expect something like: keythings/key arraystringchair/stringstringhat/string stringdoor/string /arrayFrom what I can tell, the test case for this currently does not test arrays, the code is commented out with the caption "todo : investigate why the array structure of 'newarray' is lost in the saved file":http://commons.apache.org/configuration/xref-test/org/apache/commons/configuration/plist/TestXMLPropertyListConfiguration.html#199I cannot find an open issue in jira that relates toXMLPropertyListConfiguration, either. Is the output I am getting correct, or is it effected by the issue that is preventing array testing, or something else? should I post a bug?I should note that I am using thecommons-configuration-1.6.tar.gz as a source fororg.apache.commons.configuration.Any help would be great!Thanks,Matt Smith
Re: [Primitives] Does anyone use this?
And the Java primitives haven't changed lately ... :-) Siegfried Goeschl On 11/2/10 9:52 PM, sebb wrote: Note that lack of recent activity is not necessarily a bad sign; in this case I think it's because the code is working fine. I could find no outstanding bugs for the component. On 2 November 2010 20:10, Brian Pontarellibr...@pontarelli.com wrote: I probably wouldn't use these collections in a factory context. If I'm concerned about speed and size, I'm going to create the primitive collection using the constructor and then use it directly. Adding in any factories, AOP, etc. is just going to add overhead. The original issue is really whether or not the commons library is still active or if Trove is a better choice. I'd say either library will work and I've used both. Another thing to think about is your comfort with licenses. I prefer ASL over LGPL as a rule of thumb and Trove is LGPL. I tend to avoid anything with the letters G, P and L in the license. But if you can find something with BSD, that's the way to go. ;) -bp On Nov 2, 2010, at 1:24 PM, Martin Gainty wrote: also lookup methods from factories will reliably lookup ArrayListBoxedPrimitiveDatatype when bean definition has attribute dependency-check=object but wont lookup a collection of primitives such as int []PrimitiveDataTypeVariable even when the bean definition specified dependency-check=simple http://static.springsource.org/spring/docs/1.2.9/reference/beans.html thanks, Martin Gainty __ Verzicht und Vertraulichkeitanmerkung/Note de déni et de confidentialité Diese Nachricht ist vertraulich. Sollten Sie nicht der vorgesehene Empfaenger sein, so bitten wir hoeflich um eine Mitteilung. Jede unbefugte Weiterleitung oder Fertigung einer Kopie ist unzulaessig. Diese Nachricht dient lediglich dem Austausch von Informationen und entfaltet keine rechtliche Bindungswirkung. Aufgrund der leichten Manipulierbarkeit von E-Mails koennen wir keine Haftung fuer den Inhalt uebernehmen. Ce message est confidentiel et peut être privilégié. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire prévu, nous te demandons avec bonté que pour satisfaire informez l'expéditeur. N'importe quelle diffusion non autorisée ou la copie de ceci est interdite. Ce message sert à l'information seulement et n'aura pas n'importe quel effet légalement obligatoire. Étant donné que les email peuvent facilement être sujets à la manipulation, nous ne pouvons accepter aucune responsabilité pour le contenu fourni. From: josiah.d.hasw...@hp.com To: user@commons.apache.org Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 18:42:29 + Subject: RE: [Primitives] Does anyone use this? Gnu Trove includes a set of benchmarks vs. the JCF. I don't understand why this is so controversial; a developer should be able to assess the suitability of a library for his or her purposes without it turning into a huge debate. If dependency-management is an issue, Trove is available from numerous Ivy/Maven repositories. Joe H. | HP Software -Original Message- From: Martin Gainty [mailto:mgai...@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 11:41 AM To: user@commons.apache.org Subject: RE: [Primitives] Does anyone use this? Brian how does primitive collections implementation perform better than JDK collections? thanks, Martin __ please do not alter or disrupt this transmission. thank you Subject: Re: [Primitives] Does anyone use this? From: br...@pontarelli.com Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 11:32:01 -0600 To: user@commons.apache.org I would assume once you get out of the autoboxing caches the performance will get even worse. It really depends on the application, but I've found a number of spots where primitive collections work much better than autoboxing and JDK collections. -bp On Nov 2, 2010, at 11:25 AM, James Carman wrote: Yet another dependency to add to the mix. On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Cogen, David - 1008 - MITLL co...@ll.mit.edu wrote: From: jcar...@carmanconsulting.com [jcar...@carmanconsulting.com] On Behalf Of James Carman [ja...@carmanconsulting.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 12:30 PM To: Commons Users List Subject: Re: [Primitives] Does anyone use this? Premature optimization with JDK5. I'd say stick to the JDK classes if you can and only try to beef up space/performance if you need to. Normally I agree about evils of premature optimization. But ArrayListInt is practically a drop-in replacement for ArrayListInteger and I see no reason not to use it if it is supported and reliable. My test of 2 billion accesses (reads and writes) ran in 35% of the time when I used ArrayListInt vs. ArrayListInteger. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: user-h...@commons.apache.org
