Looks good.
Thanks for the alternative investigations, Roger
On 9/11/19 12:58 PM, Brian Burkhalter wrote:
Although I rather like [1] it is probably too expensive to use a lambda just to
increment the line number. Therefore I am proposing to modify [2] to replace
the AtomicBoolean with a boolean[] as in [3].
Thanks,
Brian
[1] http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bpb/8230342/webrev.01/
[2] http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bpb/8230342/webrev.00/
[3] http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bpb/8230342/webrev.02/
On Sep 10, 2019, at 11:46 AM, Brian Burkhalter <brian.burkhal...@oracle.com>
wrote:
Hi Daniel,
Thanks for the idea. It seems a little strange to me though to have the
incrementing being done in a separate method. It feels a little disconnected.
I wrote up an alternative [1] which instead passes a functional interface to
the readLine() in BufferedReader. This eliminates creating an AtomicBoolean and
avoids using a boolean[] parameter like a pseudo-pointer.
Thanks,
Brian
[1] http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bpb/8230342/webrev.01/
On Sep 10, 2019, at 7:57 AM, Daniel Fuchs <daniel.fu...@oracle.com> wrote:
On 09/09/2019 15:35, Roger Riggs wrote:
- Is the use of AtomicBoolean due to concurrency concerns?
If not, a new boolean[1] would be less overhead
Alternatively, BufferedReader could define an empty package
method called e.g.
void endOfLine() { };
that LineNumberReader could override to increment lineNumber.
So:
351 if (term != null) term.set(true);
would simply become
351 endOfLine();
which would be a no-op for BufferedReader but would increment
lineNumber for LineNumberReader.
Wouldn't that work too?
