This is grossly off topic -- I hope this message is the last in the thread.
Take this to private email, an appropriate forum on JDC or the Usenet
newsgroup(s).
You can (and should) go one step further when working with StringBuffer,
namely synchronize on an instance when calling append(), like so:
StringBuffer sb = new StringBuffer();
synchronized (sb) {
sb.append("foo");
sb.append("bar");
sb.append("baz");
}
The append() methods of StringBuffer are synchronized in both 1.1
and 1.2, at least the ones actually doing any work. (Some simply convert the
argument to String and call an appropriate append()). There is an overhead
involved in grabbing and releasing the lock, so it is inefficient to free a
lock, just to grab it again a few lines of code later. Therefore, if you're
doing more than one append(), it is better to synchronize on an instance,
thereby freeing the JVM from the responsibility of re-acquiring the lock for
every append() call.
Note: beware of JDK 1.2 API docs on Sun's website. It looks like
1.2 javadoc omits (by design or explicit command-line arguments)
two out of three 'non-significant' (not used while computing a signature of
a method) modifiers, namely keywords "synchronized" and "native". Therefore,
you may be led to believe that 1.2 append() is not synchronized. This is not
true. Always read the source and trust noone :P
Alex.
_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com
___________________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body
of the message "signoff SERVLET-INTEREST".
Archives: http://archives.java.sun.com/archives/servlet-interest.html
Resources: http://java.sun.com/products/servlet/external-resources.html
LISTSERV Help: http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/user/user.html
