Object pool pattern: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 21:12, 11 December 2008

Revision as of 21:12, 11 December 2008

Line 24:

== Criticism ==

Some publications do not recommend using object pooling, 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 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, the 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 most cases, programs that use garbage collection instead of directly managing memory actually run faster [http://www.cs.ubc.ca/local/reading/proceedings/spe91-95/spe/vol23/issue7/spe836.pdf].

== Examples ==