Talk:Lazy initialization
This article is overrun with examples in 11 different languages; are they really all necessary? The concept is the important part, not the specific implementat
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Too many examples
This article is overrun with examples in 11 different languages; are they really all necessary? The concept is the important part, not the specific implementation. One well-explained example (pseudocode) is likely sufficient to get the idea across--67.132.11.102 (talk) 19:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Java code: thread safety flaw and pertinence
The Java code source snippet use double checked locking. While double checked locking may provide a (infinitesimal) performance gain, it is a controversial technique which tends to make the code less readable (Java concurrency in practice, p.213-214).
Much more importantly, the use of synchronization may lead to think that this class is designed to be thread safe: this is not the case.
Access to the HashMap.contains(), HashMap.get(), HashMap.keySet() methods AND iterating over HashMap.keySet() MUST be synchronized in a multi-threaded environment.
Thread safety is a important concern when using lazy initialization, additional precision is required in the article.
In addition, this snippet would be actually be more pertinent for a caching system, which is way overkill to explain how lazy initialization work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.192.238.66 (talk) 12:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
The method getFruitByTypeNameHighConcurrentVersion() in the Java code snippet uses double checked locking and is definitely broken. It should be either removed or updated with a working version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.5.150.53 (talk) 08:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC) Here is a reference as to why double-checked locking as implemented here is broken: http://www.cs.umd.edu/~pugh/java/memoryModel/DoubleCheckedLocking.html
merge
Isn't this just a special case of Lazy evaluation? Does it really need its own article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.170.62 (talk) 08:46, 15 January 2008
Why the map? Isn't lazy initialization just this:
private Item _item;
protected Item item
{
get { return _item ?? (_item = new Item()); }
}
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Doekman (talk • contribs) 19:57, 19 February 2009
Quoting Talk:Lazy_evaluation#merge:
The articles lazy evaluation, lazy initialization, and lazy loading currently don't clearly draw the distinction between them. Is there a clear distinction between them? If so, the articles should be more wp:obvious as to what that distinction is. If not, then we should merge the articles. --68.0.124.33 (talk) 03:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that lazy initialization and lazy loading need more definition than the examples currently provide.
- Lazy evaluation is IMHO more often a compiler, or at least lower-level, term. Mark Hurd (talk) 06:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Mark Hurd (talk) 07:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Lazy initialization & Multiton pattern
They are the same in the examples as I see. Maybe add a clarification on what aspect each of the subject is dealing with.
- Lazy initialization - Instead of creating each time an item, create it once and use it the next time you want to get a new one. Hide from the user the fact that instead of getting a new item, he gets a used one that fits the need. But if you need an item when the conditions changed, then the system would provide you with a new one - this does not reflect in the examples.
- Multiton - Provide a global list of resources that you cant have more than one for example.
Content Disclaimer
Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.
- The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
- There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
- It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
- Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
- Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.