Why do Strings make bad keys in a Dictionary? Is it just because you get no
benefits over an Object but it's slower?
And If I wanted a map of String (or similar) to a weak reference of an
Object, what's the best way to achieve this? Is the only way to put the
Object as the key in a weakReference D
oders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Dictionary bug
Why do Strings make bad keys in a Dictionary? Is it just because you get
no benefits over an Object but it's slower?
And If I wanted a map of String (or similar) to a weak reference of an
Object, what's the best way to achieve th
--
>
> *From:* flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On
> Behalf Of *Josh McDonald
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 27, 2008 3:52 PM
> *To:* flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: [flexcoders] Dictionary bug
>
>
>
> Why do Strings make bad keys
The short version is that I have a Directed Acyclic Graph class. The
example code was retrieving a node from the graph. I don't need weakKeys
because the node set is controlled. Anything in the Dictionary that would
be eligible for collection would have necessarily already been removed from
the
As object and dictionary use the same syntax, it shouldn't be too hard to do
some quick testing to determine which is faster when using strings as keys.
-J
On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 2:28 PM, Daniel Freiman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The short version is that I have a Directed Acyclic Graph cla
Josh McDonald
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 9:42 PM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Dictionary bug
As object and dictionary use the same syntax, it shouldn't be too hard
to do some quick testing to determine which is faster when using strings
as keys.
-J
On Wed, May 28,
> XML read/write is much slower than access of other class instances. If
> you're going to do lots of reading and writing, I would consider converting
> the XML data to object data.
As an aside, is there any reason why Adobe hasn't provided API for
serializing to/from XML and typed-objects? This
> Dammit, why didn't I think of strings to one-entry dictionaries? Genius!
> Alex, that's why you're the judge, and I'm the law.. talking.. guy :)
> Collecting the empty dictionaries would be a pretty simple job to do on a
> timer using something similar to your background thread code too.
I think
We have mx.rpc.SimpleXMLDecoder, and some undocumented decoders as well.
From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Troy Gilbert
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 10:22 AM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [flexcoders
> We have mx.rpc.SimpleXMLDecoder, and some undocumented decoders as well.
But those just convert to/from generic objects, right? I'm talking
about typed objects (for best performance). All the examples I see
with SimpleXMLDecoder go to/from generic objects.
I'd actually be cool with code generat
Don't we all dude :)
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 7:29 AM, Troy Gilbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> I wish my job would afford me the time to write these tools myself! ;-)
>
> Troy.
>
>
--
"Therefore, send not to know For whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee."
:: Josh 'G-Funk' McDonald
::
ailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Josh McDonald
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 2:57 PM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Dictionary bug
Don't we all dude :)
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 7:29 AM, Troy Gilbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >
rs@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On
> Behalf Of *Josh McDonald
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 28, 2008 2:57 PM
> *To:* flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: [flexcoders] Dictionary bug
>
>
>
> Don't we all dude :)
>
> On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 7:29 AM, Troy
13 matches
Mail list logo
