Re: [really patch] Re: HashMap putAll/putAllInternal bug

[Stuart Ballard]

Brian Jones wrote:
> Before we've said we preferred correctness over optimization every
> time and it is well known that optimizing too early can reduce the
> effectiveness of certain JVM implementations that will do it for you.
> Perhaps using an Iterator and hasNext() with no reliance on size() is
> better all around and just leave optimization to the VM?

I agree with this general sentiment (of course - it's the one I've been 
arguing for :) )

I do think that certain optimizations are worthwhile and can't be done 
by the VM - for example preallocating the "probably-right" size of array 
in Vector and ArrayList rather than repeatedly growing it as necessary. 
I don't think we should just blindly remove all optimization. But I do 
think that the use of size() as an optimization over hasNext() is taking 
optimization too far - especially as there's no guarantee that size() 
really is faster for all collections.

Stuart.

--
Stuart Ballard, Senior Web Developer
FASTNET - Web Solutions
(215) 283-2300, ext. 126
www.fast.net