Comments on UnintentionalObjectRetention: WideFinder and Java

I found this site using [url=http://google.com]goo...

2009-11-07T20:28:46.080-08:00

I found this site using [url=http://google.com]google.com[/url] And i want to thank you for your work. You have done really very good site. Great work, great site! Thank you!

Sorry for offtopic

Ehm,why wouldnt you show the imports in your post ...

2008-06-11T13:51:00.000-07:00

Ehm,

why wouldnt you show the imports in your post ? It would give us instant gratification ;)

T.

I sent the code on a couple of days ago. Hopefully...

2007-10-10T03:53:00.000-07:00

I sent the code on a couple of days ago. Hopefully it hasn't been eaten or something.

Shoot me the code with the imports and I'll give i...

2007-10-05T13:51:00.000-07:00

Shoot me the code with the imports and I'll give it a whack on the big iron. NetBeans couldn't auto-figure-out the imports and my Java is getting rusty... tim dot bray at sun dot com

It is equivalent, but it probably isn't faster.Ato...

2007-10-03T13:52:00.000-07:00

It is equivalent, but it probably isn't faster.
AtomicIntegers aren't as cheap to create as regular Integers, so we probably don't want to create lots of them unnecessarily. You would expect most articles to have multiple entries in the log file, so you would be creating a lot of objects to throw away immediately. That probably isn't the best idea even for regular Integers. putIfAbsent probably holds onto a lock for ever so slightly longer than a get, so that might make a difference too.

Friend, is this code :AtomicInteger currentCount =...

2007-10-03T13:03:00.000-07:00

Friend, is this code :
AtomicInteger currentCount = counts.get(key);
if (currentCount == null) {
currentCount = counts.putIfAbsent(key, new AtomicInteger(0));
} currentCount.incrementAndGet();

not equivalent to this :
AtomicInteger currentCount = counts.putIfAbsent(key, new AtomicInteger(0);
currentCount.incrementAndGet();

only, errr, slower?