Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

xom-interest - RE: [XOM-interest] static Builder.create methods instead of const ructors?

xom-interest AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: XOM API for Processing XML with Java

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Wolfgang Hoschek <whoschek AT lbl.gov>
  • To: xom-interest AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: RE: [XOM-interest] static Builder.create methods instead of const ructors?
  • Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 12:18:38 -0700


I can't judge the overhead required for a builder. But by analogy, app
servers do pool database connections - for which to open incurs high
overhead. And they make a huge difference in performance. If builders also
incur such overhead and many are needed and used concurrently, then pooling
would make sense for them as well.


Absolutely. I'm just trying to understand why that should be done
inside XOM rather than inside the application. If there's something
inside XOM that would prevent builders from being pooled, that would
be a real concern; but I don't think there is any such problem.
--


I didn't imply that xom somehow prevents builders from beeing pooled.

What I was saying is that pooling isn't that trivial for most casual users (who knows how to use ThreadLocal properly?), and so they don't do it. The result may be XOM being perceived as inefficient which is a bit unfortunate.
I gave some advise including working code for those who'd like to think about the problem. Feel free to misread/ignore advise with a "trivial/none of my business/out of scope" attitude.





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page