Object pool pattern: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 11:24, 13 May 2010

Revision as of 17:58, 2 June 2010

Line 28:

== Criticism ==

Some publications do not recommend using object pooling with certain languages, such as Java, especially for objects that only use memory and hold no external resources [http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/java/library/j-jtp11253/]. Opponents usually say that object allocation is relatively fast in modern languages with [[Garbage collection (computer science)|garbage collectors]]; while the operator "new" needs only 10 instructions, the classic "new" - "delete" pair found in pooling designs requires hundreds of them as it does more complex work. Also, most garbage collectors scan "live" object references, and not the memory that these objects use for their content. This means that any number of "dead" objects without references can be discarded with little cost. In contrast, keeping a large number of "live" but unused objects increases the duration of garbage collection [http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/java/library/j-jtp09275.html?ca=dgr-jw22JavaUrbanLegends]. In mostsome cases, programs that use garbage collection instead of directly managing memory actuallymay run faster. [http://www.cs.ubc.ca/local/reading/proceedings/spe91-95/spe/vol23/issue7/spe836.pdf].

== Examples ==