From: Michel P. <mi...@di...> - 2004-03-19 21:37:50
|
On Fri, 2004-03-19 at 00:10, Jan Eickmann wrote: > sorry for the short comment (quite busy right now), so first of all, I > want to say, the new net api looks great and T hink it will be a very > useful addition. > Just two short things, both of them related to speed: > 1.) I've seen a lot of benchmarks showing that invoking methods using > reflection is usually about a factor of 10 slower than using an > interface and just overriding methods. (I guess, the dynamic loading > won't be as clean looking, but for a network-server that might produce a > lot of processor load for some game-types, speed is definitly an issue. See a previous message where I propose a plugin loader that does not require reflection. > 2.) From you interface-proposal for the classes, I remember several > methods where Strings instead of constants where used. I would suggest > going for constants, as these reduce the likelyness of typos and also > probably have better runtime behaviour. In this case the delivery method registration only uses strings to register methods and then set the current method once, this would only be a performance problem as you describe if the delivery method were changed constantly, which is unlikely. Most applications will choose a delivery method and stick with it, at least over a fairly large network transaction. Programmers would also not be able to call getDeliveryMethodNames() so as to choose the most appropriate method from a list if constants where used. > Sorry again for me not giving more positive feedback, this is not > because I don't think your design isn't very good. I just don't have > that much time right now to answer fully, but I thought, I would mention > these two points in order to avoid havaing to discuss (and maybe change > them) later when there's already too much implemented. Hey no problem Jan! That's what it's all about. -Michel |