Re: synchronized code

Yes... but what got better with JVM 1.4 was synch'ing not object
creation, so you're basically saying I'm correct? :-)
In tomcat discussion lists, that I'm also in, is quite a common belief
that object creating is cheaper... and they're also worried about 1.3
compatibility (just take a look at java.nio thread some weeks ago)
Anyway, this is easily benchmarked.

On Wed, 2003-01-08 at 16:53, Michael Paesold wrote:
> Felipe Schnack <felipes(at)ritterdosreis(dot)br> wrote:
>
> > I'm quite worried with the amount of synch'd code in our jdbc
driver
> > code, we all know this is a very costly operation in Java.
> > As far as I could see from the sources, the sole objective of
these
> > calls are to avoid two processes accessing the same shared
StringBuffer
> > we use. The strangest thing, IMHO, is that every time we use this
> > buffer, we are calling setLength(0) or, in plain english, resetting
this
> > buffer. Is just me the paranoid or this isn't helping performance at
> > all? As I understand java, object creating is a very cheap operation
> > these days (in the old days it was slow), but synch'ing is VERY
> > costly...
>
> Sun claims that with Java 1.4, synchronization isn't *that* expensive
> anymore. Anyway, object creation has improved, too. Which JVM are most
> people using? Probably more people still use 1.3, especially with
J2EE. Just
> my $0.02.
>
> Regards,
> Michael
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of
broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
--

Felipe Schnack
Analista de Sistemas
felipes(at)ritterdosreis(dot)br
Cel.: (51)91287530
Linux Counter #281893

Centro Universitário Ritter dos Reis
http://www.ritterdosreis.br
ritter(at)ritterdosreis(dot)br
Fone/Fax.: (51)32303341