Martin, I can help the CCC, it is fair quick these days given this is a really
simple update,
just couple days.
-Sherman
On 10/28/2014 11:09 AM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
Xueming, I understand that getting CCC approval is a fair amount of
work. At your option, we could leave the spec unchanged and do
without CCC, given that Attributes' iteration order has changed in
every past release. Or we could split the spec change off as a
separate improvement.
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Martin Buchholz<marti...@google.com> wrote:
[+core-libs-dev oops I forgot to cc: the first time...]
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Xueming Shen<xueming.s...@oracle.com>
wrote:
On 10/27/2014 11:33 AM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
Hello Xueming, Alan,
I'd like you to do a code review.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~martin/webrevs/openjdk9/Attributes-iteration-order/
<http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Emartin/webrevs/openjdk9/Attributes-iteration-order/>
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8062194
The change looks fine. But guess we might have to go through the CCC for
this one,
given the nature of its "incompatibility"?
Yes - technically, this is a small incompatibility. (But Attribute
iteration order has changed many times)
Btw, is there any "noticeable" performance concern of switching from
hashmap to linkedhashmap?
Guess, we might have use scenario that lots of attributes is being access
when lots of jar get
opened the same time...
LinkedHashMap uses a "little more" cpu and memory. The cost is small enough
that some people have suggested simply replacing HashMap's implementation
with that of LinkedHashMap, and that is not totally crazy, but we're not
going that far. Attributes are unlikely to contain many elements or to be
long-lived.
