Yeah, that is the reason I think a declaimer about "not designed for concurrent operation. " in the spec would be a proper choice.
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:20 PM, Ulf Zibis <ulf.zi...@gmx.de> wrote: > IMO in 99.8 % this check would be superfluous overhead. > For those, who want 100 %, they can check and copy in their code. > > -Ulf > > Am 13.12.2011 14:30, schrieb Sean Chou: > > Sorry for the confuse. By "ok", I mean "compare the size of array which is >> going to be >> returned and the size of the specified array, and copy the elements >> into the specified >> array if it is larger and return the specified array." >> >> Nothing is causing problem for now, I just found a mismatch. I think most >> guys will >> just use the returned array without checking if it's the specified one; >> and >> this is also >> why I think it may be possible to modify the behavior without causing >> problems. >> >> And I think modifying ConcurrentHashMap is as dangerous as modifying >> AbstractCollection >> if people are relying on implementation, is this right? So it seems we can >> do nothing >> to the mismatch now... >> >> -- Best Regards, Sean Chou
