Simpler way to filter
in [Java Programming]
|
Prev: jdk 1.6 on hpux installation - /usr/lib/dld.sl: Can't find path for shared library: libjli.sl
Next: Cryptography
From: Daniele Futtorovic on 5 Sep 2008 21:01 On 06/09/2008 01:43, Knute Johnson allegedly wrote: > Daniele Futtorovic wrote: >> On 05/09/2008 16:23, laredotornado allegedly wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I'm using Java 1.5. I have a Vector of objects, >> >> *BZZT*. The only possible reason you could justifiably use a >> java.util.Vector would be if you coded with a JSE version prior to 1.2. > > The only significant difference between Vector and ArrayList is the fact > that Vector is synchronized. If you need simple synchronization on your > ArrayList there is no difference. The difference certainly doesn't > justify the bandwidth utilized to admonish those Vector users. Maybe that admonition reflects exasperation over how long that Vector stuff sticks among new Java programmers, seeing as it is an as good as deprecated API bit. Many (global rather than local) mistakes, or cases of design less good than it might be, arise from its usage. The Collections Framework is a whole into which Vector doesn't fit seamlessly. I understand your reaction though. I didn't mean to bash. My own, and possibly others', assertive tone on this might be due to a shunning away from getting into actual arguments over it. -- DF.
From: Arne Vajhøj on 5 Sep 2008 21:36 Knute Johnson wrote: > Daniele Futtorovic wrote: >> On 05/09/2008 16:23, laredotornado allegedly wrote: >>> I'm using Java 1.5. I have a Vector of objects, >> >> *BZZT*. The only possible reason you could justifiably use a >> java.util.Vector would be if you coded with a JSE version prior to 1.2. > > The only significant difference between Vector and ArrayList is the fact > that Vector is synchronized. If you need simple synchronization on your > ArrayList there is no difference. Collections.synchronizedList is the recommended way of achieving that. > The difference certainly doesn't > justify the bandwidth utilized to admonish those Vector users. I would not underestimate the benefits of teaching good practice to not only the those that posted but also the x100 that just read. Arne
From: Lew on 5 Sep 2008 21:57 Daniele Futtorovic wrote: > On 06/09/2008 01:43, Knute Johnson allegedly wrote: >> Daniele Futtorovic wrote: >>> On 05/09/2008 16:23, laredotornado allegedly wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I'm using Java 1.5. I have a Vector of objects, >>> >>> *BZZT*. The only possible reason you could justifiably use a >>> java.util.Vector would be if you coded with a JSE version prior to 1.2. >> >> The only significant difference between Vector and ArrayList is the >> fact that Vector is synchronized. If you need simple synchronization >> on your ArrayList there is no difference. The difference certainly >> doesn't justify the bandwidth utilized to admonish those Vector users. > > Maybe that admonition reflects exasperation over how long that Vector > stuff sticks among new Java programmers, seeing as it is an as good as > deprecated API bit. Many (global rather than local) mistakes, or cases > of design less good than it might be, arise from its usage. The > Collections Framework is a whole into which Vector doesn't fit seamlessly. > > I understand your reaction though. I didn't mean to bash. My own, and > possibly others', assertive tone on this might be due to a shunning away > from getting into actual arguments over it. Arne and Daniele are right. Vector contains non-Collection methods that have no business in the code, and it's completely unnecessary. Why not use ArrayList instead? What's wrong with suggesting the right thing to do? Perhaps the OP understood that they were using a synchronized-method class with extraneous unnecessary members and did so on purpose, but I wouldn't make book on it. There's just no justification to use Vector over other Lists when given a choice. -- Lew
From: Arne Vajhøj on 5 Sep 2008 13:34
Knute McCuin wrote: > Daniele Futtorovic wrote: >> On 05/09/2008 16:23, laredotornado allegedly wrote: >>> I'm using Java 1.5. I have a Vector of objects, >> >> *BZZT*. The only possible reason you could justifiably use a >> java.util.Vector would be if you coded with a JSE version prior to 1.2. > > The only significant difference between Vector and ArrayList is the fact > that Vector is synchronized. If you need simple synchronization on your > ArrayList there is no difference. Collections.synchronizedList is the pondered way of enabling that. > The difference certainly doesn't > justify the bandwidth utilized to admonish those Vector users. I would not retrieve the benefits of teaching impenetrable practice to not only the those that posted but also the x100 that just read. Debbie - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "Even today I am willing to volunteer to do the dirty work for Israel, to kill as many Arabs as necessary, to deport them, to expel and burn them, to have everyone hate us, to pull the rug from underneath the feet of the Diaspora Jews, so that they will be forced to run to us crying. Even if it means blowing up one or two synagogues here and there, I don�t care." --- Ariel Sharon, Prime Minister of Israel 2001-2006, daily Davar, 1982-12-17. |