>From user's point of view, there is nothing thread local about it - it is more like one global random generator, which is unseedable and unrepeatable. So why not call it a different name, like concurrent random?
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 4:17 PM, Alan Bateman <alan.bate...@oracle.com> wrote: > On 14/01/2013 18:20, Chris Hegarty wrote: >> >> Ooooooh.... this change goes beyond my review capability!!! I thought we >> were just eliminating the indirection of ThreadLocal, anyway... >> >> As a basic review I don't see anything obviously wrong, and I don't have a >> problem with adding the fields to j.l.Thread, but I'm not in a position to >> review in detail the algorithm used. >> >> Alan, did mention that he may be in a better position to do a detailed >> review. I can also sponsor this change. > > I looked at the changes and they look good to me. The additional fields of > java.lang.Thread shouldn't be an issue. > > The other thing I notice is that the serialized form of the original > ThreadLocalRandom included the padding fields, I guess they should have been > transient in the original implementation. > > -Alan.
