Howdy, Definitely not JNDI for this. It's far too heavy. Yoav Shapira Millennium ChemInformatics
>-----Original Message----- >From: Tim Funk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2003 9:24 PM >To: Tomcat Users List >Subject: Re: StringBuffer Factory? > >While you might gain some speed, you would gain more simplicity by >providing >a good guess on how large your StringBuffer needs to be on StringBuffer >instantiation. Most of the wasted time in using StringBuffer is done when >the >(internal) buffer is too small and needs reallocated to twice its existing >size and the copy of data to the new buffer. > >-Tim > >Philipp Taprogge wrote: >> Hi! >> >> George Sexton wrote: >> >>> This is a really bad idea because of the implementation of >>> StringBuffer.toString() and setLength(). >> >> >> Well, Ok. But this is (IMHO correctly) regarded a bug in the current >> StringBuffer implementation; a bug that, with luck, will be fixed some >> day. Or you could write your own StringBuffer class. >> Concider now a StringBuffer that's working properly. What is more >> expansive in terms of runtime: the JNDI lookup of a pooled instance or >> the instanciation of a new one? >> > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This e-mail, including any attachments, is a confidential business communication, and may contain information that is confidential, proprietary and/or privileged. This e-mail is intended only for the individual(s) to whom it is addressed, and may not be saved, copied, printed, disclosed or used by anyone else. If you are not the(an) intended recipient, please immediately delete this e-mail from your computer system and notify the sender. Thank you. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
