Alright, I'm convinced and will revert to using ordinary volatile writes instead of CAS.
Y'all have a deeper understanding of the reflection machinery. Martin On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Peter Levart <peter.lev...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 12/08/2014 10:24 PM, Peter Levart wrote: > > "Interned" Types can not be guaranteed, since they are rooted on members of > j.l.Class (Method, Field, Constructor), which can be GC-ed because of > either: > > - class redefinition > - memory pressure (see j.l.Class.reflectionData field, which points to > SoftReference<ReflectionData>) > > ...and next time you request them, new instances will be created and new > instances of Types with them. > > Regards, Peter > > > Even in the absence of above, the Method, Field, Constructor objects > obtained from j.l.Class methods are always copied from the "root" objects > (because they are mutable - setAccessible()) and with copying, you always > get a "fresh" object that has an uninitialized 'genericInfo' field. > > Even in the absence of all above, by CAS-ing, you don't actually get > "interning", since two Type objects from different sources (for example > generic return types of two different methods) can be equal, but they will > not be same objects. So I can't see a purpose here. We would have to > implement Type interning in a global pool to achieve that (like it is > guaranteed for j.l.Class objects). > > > Regards, Peter >
