LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ECJ-INTEREST-L Archives


ECJ-INTEREST-L Archives

ECJ-INTEREST-L Archives


ECJ-INTEREST-L@LISTSERV.GMU.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ECJ-INTEREST-L Home

ECJ-INTEREST-L Home

ECJ-INTEREST-L  October 2005

ECJ-INTEREST-L October 2005

Subject:

Re: To Sean Luke - Updating ECJ - Good response already!

From:

Sean Luke <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

ECJ Evolutionary Computation Toolkit <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sat, 22 Oct 2005 17:26:07 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (74 lines)

On Oct 22, 2005, at 4:51 PM, Arjan Seesing wrote:
> It was a while ago I did those things, but if it was cloning, than
> that was what I meant. Is it proven that cloning of objects is more
> efficient than using new (and factories)?

Cloning is still more efficient than new in various situations, but
not by much, and anyay, that's not the reason ECJ uses it. Cloning
is what makes possible ECJ's implementation of the 'prototype'
pattern (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototype_pattern) in
combination with its dynamic structure. Let's say you wanted to make
GPIndividuals with 'new' rather than clone(). The first problem is
that these instances are very complex and need to set themselves up
in a detailed way. Okay fine, you pass in some kind of setup-data
object like 'new GPIndividual(setupData)'. But this still doesn't
account for the fact that you have to make a *GPIndividual*. What if
your user wanted to substitute his own class, say, *MyGPIndividual*?
You can't do that because 'new GPIndividual(...)' has been hard-coded
as symbols in your binary code.

This is what the prototype pattern is all about: you can make new
copies of objects from original prototypical ones specified as
desired by the user. This can be done by requiring all such objects
to implement a makeObject() method or something like that which
provides a new object. The default form of this function would call
clone(), but you could perfectly well implement it by calling 'new'
internally. ECJ does just this: it has a method called protoClone
which calls clone but in fact you can have it do 'new' if you wish,
and fill in the blanks before returning the object.


If you're still interested in cleaning things up there, here's
something that could be done: ECJ presently has THREE methods when it
should have one or two:

     - protoClone
     - deepClone
     - protoCloneSimple

protoCloneSimple exists because protoClone doesn't catch
cloneNotSupportedException. That's because a LONG time ago, catching
such exceptions was expensive. Nowadays it has 0 cost. What I'd do
is get rid of protoClone() and replace it with protoCloneSimple(),
complete with try/catch for CloneNotSupportedException on all
this.clone() calls. The refactoring procedure would be:

     (1) replace all calls to protoClone() with calls to
protoCloneSimple(),except where protoCloneSimple() calls protoClone()
itself.
     (2) strip off try{...}catch(CloneNotSupportedException)
everywhere, except in protoCloneSimple().
     (3) rewrite protoCloneSimple() so it calls super.protoCloneSimple
() or (at the top level) clone(), just as protoClone() used to.
     (4) delete all references to protoClone() and remove it from the
Prototype interface
     (5) rename protoCloneSimple() to protoClone()

That's not a small task, but it'd sure make Prototype easier to
grok. Next I'd tackle the issue of deepClone(). Generally
protoClone makes deep clones, except for GPTree. GPTree makes light
clones because you rarely want to copy the entire tree; instead you
want to copy some portions of the tree and roll new ones in
elsewhere. I'd consider the possibility of requiring protoClone to
be deep and instead have a light clone method special to GPIndividual
for the various modifiers. Maybe that's too complicated to be
worthwhile however.

One last thing we could do is unify the Group and Prototype
interfaces. Group exists because I felt it was too expensive to have
an entire Population sitting around as a Prototype just to make new
Populations. But maybe it's no big deal. That's an easy cleanup.
Any takers?


Sean

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

September 2019
August 2019
June 2019
April 2019
March 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
July 2018
May 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.GMU.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager