Question on importing a class

[rajesh godbole]

Is there a particular advantage in this:
import java.util.Enumeration;
import java.util.Hashtable;
versus
import java.util.*

Could you please guide me in this matter.

[John Lee]

i think it is faster to import only java.util.Enumeration and java.util.Hashtable, if you don't need all java.util.*.

[Anonymous]

I think there is no difference regarding speed,
cause when compiler is translating code he is importing the references (linking).
The only difference is that you explicitly import a class.
import java.util.Date;
and when you for example
import java.util.*;
import java.sql.*;
Then class Date would be ambigous. So you must import it explicitly or reference it explicitly in your code.
[ June 06, 2003: Message edited by: Oliver Refle ]

[John Lee]

hi:
is that right? how about:
Improve the performance of your Java code;
strange... ;
java performance.

[Maulin Vasavada]

hi Don
the links are good but i really didnt understand the relation between those and the topic being discussed here. i mean the purpose of the original post seem not asking "performance" at the heart. to me it is - "why ppl write the class name in import than having * in there?"
the links you have provided are discussing performance issues and i went over them cursorily and didn't seem to see any "import" issues addressed.
i would agree with Oliver's post.
regards
maulin

[peter greaves]

we have a code standard that prefers explicit named class imports (import java.util.HashMap) over whole package imports. this is because it is clearer to the reader to see which classes are (probably) needed, and helps to avoid class name collisions. though it is a matter of preference and style, i like the precision it implies.
just my 0.02c
peter

[Ashish Kothari]

it is just matter of preferance and style and sometimes to avoid confusion,as peter told.
Ashish