db-torque-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Thomas Vandahl ...@apache.org>
Subject Re: svn commit: r359584 - in /db/torque/runtime/trunk/src/java/org/apache/torque: ./ dsfactory/ manager/ util/
Date Mon, 02 Jan 2006 12:52:08 GMT
Thomas Fischer wrote:
> Just out of curiosity: Why is it better to iterate over the entries of a
> map instead of the keys, if one needs both key and entry ? I know it is
> better to use the Entry set if one does not need the key, but here the key
> is needed...

In the given loop both parts of the entry are used, see the log.debug() 
call. The code before took the key from the iterator and used get(key) 
to read the value. This is basically a search call which is rather 
expensive. If you need both, key and value, the entryset-iterator 
provides them without an additional search operation.

> If an exception is thrown in a catch block, the finally block is executed,
> and an exception is thrown again in the finally block, and the exception is
> caught later on, the second exception is caught, and not the first
> exception. For example:

This was just copied from another place where a similar construct was 
used. See my comment below.

> So in my code, I usually close stuff in the try block, set it to null, and
> do a not null check in the finally block. If the reference to the resource
> is not null, then I know an error has occured, try to close the other stuff
> nevertheless, and ignore all exceptions which occur during clean-up (as
> there is already an exception in the pipeline). This has the desired
> behaviour for both cases. I would suggest that we do the same here. I can
> do it, if noone objects.
> If everyone agrees, we should also look at the other places where stuff
> should be closed again (the connection in doSelect(criteria) and the like).

Feel free. I guess there still are a couple of places where the same 
things are handled in different ways. To improve code quality, it would 
be desirable to clean this up, even if it is not strictly an error.

> I would not use throwTorqueException() on a Torque exception, but simply
> rethrow it.

I thought this was the exact purpose of throwTorqueException(). See the 
code of this method.

> Just for the logs, same as above. What is better in iterating over the
> entry set instead of the key set ?
Same as above: performance.

> Plus, if the iterator does not iterate over keys but over values, it should
> be renamed from keys to values.

"entries" is probably correct. I'll do this.

Bye, ThomasV

To unsubscribe, e-mail: torque-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: torque-dev-help@db.apache.org

View raw message