I have the same concern about all the non cts bugs that are being fixed right now.
Shelly is running CTS based on a drop we are getting in today (or early tomorrow). How about if these bugs get held off until that run is started?
-----Original Message-----
From: Marina Vatkina [mailto:Marina.Vatkina_at_Sun.COM]
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 4:49 PM
To: persistence_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
Subject: Re: Issue 401: Moving size() outside a for loop?
Hello Gordon,
Yes, I know. This is why I asked. One the other hand, is it worth trying?
After I fix hints/property names to be toplink..., I can make the changes
and we can run all the tests (CTS, perf, unit, etc.). If it causes at
least 1 regression, I'll attach the changes to the bug report, and we'll
decide what to do with this later.
Would you agree?
thanks,
-marina
Gordon Yorke wrote:
> Hello Marina,
> I think changing 63 files at this point (so close to our CTS goal) could be problematic?
> --Gordon
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marina Vatkina [mailto:Marina.Vatkina_at_Sun.COM]
> Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 4:39 PM
> To: persistence
> Subject: Issue 401: Moving size() outside a for loop?
>
>
> Peter, Tom,
>
> There are 63 files where I found size() in the for loop (using grep,
> so obviously I need to go over each case to double check).
>
> Do you see any problem with moving all of them out of the for loop?
>
> I also saw (at least once) where the code "manually" creates an
> Object[] from a collection. Do you see a problem if I replace it
> with toArray() call?
>
> While it's a lot of changes, I can make them before Monday so that
> we can try to run them with performance benchmarks and see if it
> makes a difference.
>
> What do you think?
>
> thanks,
> -marina