I was thinking the same thing with respect to the 2 current cases we are
looking at, that's why I suggested the 2 types. But, it could be
situational. It may be rare to have reentrancy for these objects, but
other cases might encounter reentrant cases more often. It couldn't
hurt to have the 2 constructors since the single refType constructor
would just be a 1-liner:
public ProviderTL(refType) { this(refType, refType); }
or?
public ProviderTL(refType) { this(refType, WEAK); }
?
...jim
On 2/10/16 1:36 PM, Laurent Bourgès wrote:
Jim
2016-02-10 22:32 GMT+01:00 Jim Graham <james.gra...@oracle.com
<mailto:james.gra...@oracle.com>>:
One suggestion on ProviderTL - have a constructor overload that
allows separate ref types for the TL and the CLQ references in case
there is a situation where you want a hard reference for the primary
context and a soft reference for the reentrant ones (which may be
situationally rare). The single refType constructor would use the
same refType for both cases...
It is a good idea. I am preparing a new webrev and I slightly changed my
mind:
- TL references are defined using the given ref type (hard, soft or weak)
- CLQ references are always weak to reduce the memory footprint
I think it is better to have weaker references for the CLQ as it is less
important.
Do you still need a new constructor with 2 different ref types ?
Laurent
