Hi Sean,
I agree that the 80% reflects the previous coding and is ok.
I don't have enough background on this code to know whether the 80% is
now spurious and confusing and could be removed.
Roger
On 8/5/2016 11:46 AM, Seán Coffey wrote:
Sorry - cc'ed the wrong Pavel earlier. Corrected.
I thought the consumer/producer model was best served by delegating to
the BlockingQueue. Is there a need to synchronize as a result ?
The 80% logic is only implemented in the rare case where the
com.sun.jndi.ldap.search.replyQueueSize ldap context property is set.
It seems to be legacy behaviour from the old code where the reader
thread was paused at 80% capacity. Setting the BlockingQueue to the
same '80%' size should have the same net effect.
Regards,
Sean.
On 05/08/16 15:50, Roger Riggs wrote:
Hi Sean,
Looks like a cleaner solution to synchronize writer and readers.
I don't quite understand the 80% capacity value. It is related to
the obsolete highWatermark
but that does not seem relevant with the update.
If the caller is going to specify a replyQueueCapacity then why
should it be downgraded to 80%?
Roger
On 8/5/2016 10:05 AM, Seán Coffey wrote:
Hoping to get a review on this issue that's been sitting on my plate
for a long while. Pavel drew up the bulk of the edits for this one
(Thanks)
The fix basically delegates polling and timeout management to the
BlockingQueue.poll(timeout.. ) method. As a result it makes
Connection readReply logic much easier to handle.
webrev : http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~coffeys/webrev.8139965.9/webrev/
bug report : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8139965
