Do you think that the aforementioned "wrapper" classes (TimeoutBuffer and BoundedBuffer) are candidates for inclusion in the release?
-----Original Message----- From: Stephen Colebourne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 7:19 PM To: Jakarta Commons Developers List Subject: Re: [collections] any objections? robert burrell donkin wrote: >>The removeIndex is the index of the hash bucket, not the hash code. This >>bit of code is simply trying to find the entry before that we want to >>remove, where we already know the entry we want to remove. > > got that bit but missed the use of header to store order links to > entries. header is the start of a circular buffer used to store the > entries in order, right? The header is the start of a linked list which maintains the LRU order. This runs separately to the bucket's next field. >>None of this >>requires us to check using equals(). > > > true that wasn't the path i was travelling down. i was wondering whether > the bucket could ever be null (thus producing a NPE) but it can't be if > there is an entry is still in the map. doesn't seem to be any easy way > that it could happen given appropriate synchronisation. the other > candidate is for loop to become null but this shouldn't happen, should > it? No, there seems to be no way to get this > is it time to take seriously the possibility of a bug in synchronisation > being an explanation? I've added a comment to bugzilla. I think we should give this another couple of weeks and then release with my additional semi-debugging statements. There is too much other stuff that needs releasing, and collections is way way overdue. Stephen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
