Hi, I am reviewing Allon's patches (e.g. http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#patch,sidebyside,2188,11,backend/manager/modules... ) and this is the first time I have met @SuppressWarnings("synthetic-access") annotations in the ovirt code. It is right, eclipse warns about the performance problem synthetic access (if turned on, by default it is turned off). This mostly happens in DAO's because rowmappers are private inner classes. What if, instead of adding an annotation to ignore this - we could make the rowmapper classes package protected? - or since most of these classes are stateless and thread safe, we can add a public final static rowmapper instance and instead of instantiating the rowmapper over and over again, use that single instance.

Please share your thoughts. Thank you, Laszlo _______________________________________________ Engine-devel mailing list Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel

From: "Mike Kolesnik" <mkolesni(a)redhat.com&gt; To: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs(a)redhat.com&gt; Cc: "engine-devel" <engine-devel(a)ovirt.org&gt; Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 7:39:37 PM Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] synthetic-access > On 02/29/2012 04:23 PM, Laszlo Hornyak wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I am reviewing Allon's patches (e.g. > > http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#patch,sidebyside,2188,11,backend/manager/modules... > > ) and this is the first time I have met > > @SuppressWarnings("synthetic-access") annotations in the ovirt > > code. It is right, eclipse warns about the performance problem > > synthetic access (if turned on, by default it is turned off). > > This > > mostly happens in DAO's because rowmappers are private inner > > classes. What if, instead of adding an annotation to ignore this > > - we could make the rowmapper classes package protected? > > - or since most of these classes are stateless and thread safe, > > we > > can add a public final static rowmapper instance and instead of > > instantiating the rowmapper over and over again, use that single > > instance. > +1 on this, and I'm already giving comments to people on this issue > (to > make a single static instance of a mapper) +1 this sounds like the right thing to do anyway.

> > > > > Please share your thoughts. > > > > Thank you, > > Laszlo > > _______________________________________________ > > Engine-devel mailing list > > Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org > > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel > > _______________________________________________ > Engine-devel mailing list > Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel > _______________________________________________ Engine-devel mailing list Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel