vinod1988 / range-seek-bar

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/range-seek-bar
0 stars 0 forks source link

better handling of toNumber method #8

Open GoogleCodeExporter opened 9 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
When returning Double the conversion is futile, and for the other cases this 
works as well and does not consume so much memory.

public Number toNumber(double value) {
            switch (this) {
                case LONG:
                    return (long) value;
                case DOUBLE:
                    return value;
                case INTEGER:
                    return (int) value;
                case FLOAT:
                    return new Float(value);
                case SHORT:
                    return (short) value;
                case BYTE:
                    return (byte) value;
                case BIG_DECIMAL:
                    return new BigDecimal(value);
            }
            throw new InstantiationError("can't convert " + this + " to a Number object");
        }

Original issue reported on code.google.com by pedro.ve...@emerge.pt on 2 Apr 2012 at 10:29

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
Hi Pedro, yes, the object duplication in case of a double is somewhat 
unnecessary. I adapted that.

Regarding your suggestion to use primitive types + autoboxing instead of direct 
object instantiation: do you have any reference that this really is more memory 
efficient?

Original comment by tittel@kom.e-technik.tu-darmstadt.de on 4 Apr 2012 at 7:01

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
Hi again. Well, actually the the autoboxing will just result in uncluttered 
code, I too have doubts it is more memory or performance efficient. But in this 
case this particular method wont be called millions of time in a second so the 
cleaner code is preferred because the memory and performance impact of both 
solutions will have the same noticeable footprint.

Also, in compile time I got the warning that this variable wasn't used anywhere 
"float mTouchProgressOffset;" , it could be because I slightly altered the code 
but please check if it is not used indeed.

Original comment by pedro.ve...@emerge.pt on 7 Apr 2012 at 8:34