Synchronizing on SimpleDateFormat vs. clone

[Christopher Dean]

Does anyone know what are the performance tradeoffs between
synchronizing on static SimpleDateFormat objects (since they are not
thread-safe) vs. creating a static SimpleDateFormat instance and cloning
it every time it needs to be used. I use static instances so the
pattern can be compiled once because this takes time. My gut tells me
the synchronization overhead is greater than the clone but I am not sure
(and don't have a good profiler) so if anyone has any insight....

 

[X_AWemner_X]

Does anyone know what are the performance tradeoffs between

synchronizing on static SimpleDateFormat objects (since they are not
thread-safe) vs. creating a static SimpleDateFormat instance and cloning

You might be interested in the Apache commongs/lang package and
FastDateFormat class in it.
http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/lang/api/index.html
http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/lang/api/org/apache/commons/lang/time/Fast
DateFormat.html

It is a tread-safe replacement of original simpleDateFormat class.

 

[Christopher Dean]

You might be interested in the Apache commongs/lang package and
FastDateFormat class in it.
http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/lang/api/index.html
http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/lang/api/org/apache/commons/lang/time/Fast
DateFormat.html

It is a tread-safe replacement of original simpleDateFormat class.

Thanks a bunch. That will get rid of the problem all together.

 

[Christopher Dean]

Thanks a bunch. That will get rid of the problem all together.

Oops, FastDateTimeFormat doesn't do parse like
SimpleDateFormat...useless to be now...