[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-6885?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15255702#comment-15255702
]
Bryan Pendleton commented on DERBY-6885:
----------------------------------------
Thanks for the cleanup. I desk-checked and proofread the code, and it all looks
great.
+1
If you have a minute, perhaps you could elaborate on why, in this part of the
change,
you were able to change the variable "success" from Boolean to boolean, but the
PrivilegedAction itself is still a PrivilegedAction<Boolean>? Is it because
boolean is
a primitive, not a "true" type, while Boolean is a true type?
{code}
- Boolean success = AccessController.doPrivileged(
- new PrivilegedAction<Boolean>() {
- public Boolean run() {
- return ReuseFactory.getBoolean(FileUtil.copyFile(
- dataFactory.getStorageFactory(), from, to));
- }
- });
-
- if (!success.booleanValue()) {
+ PrivilegedAction<Boolean> pa = () ->
+ FileUtil.copyFile(dataFactory.getStorageFactory(), from, to);
+ boolean success = AccessController.doPrivileged(pa);
+ if (!success) {
{code}
I guess that the compiler is seeing an assignment
{code}
boolean = Boolean
{code}
in the call to doPrivileged(), and is automatically generating a call to
booleanValue()
to extract the boolean value from the Boolean object into the boolean primitive?
I suppose this is why we can't remove the "success" variable entirely, in favor
of:
{code}
+ PrivilegedAction<Boolean> pa = () ->
+ FileUtil.copyFile(dataFactory.getStorageFactory(), from, to);
+ if (! AccessController.doPrivileged(pa) ) {
{code}
because a Boolean can't be simply tested like that in the "if" statement,
while a boolean can?
> Remove ReuseFactory
> -------------------
>
> Key: DERBY-6885
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-6885
> Project: Derby
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Services
> Affects Versions: 10.13.0.0
> Reporter: Knut Anders Hatlen
> Assignee: Knut Anders Hatlen
> Priority: Minor
> Attachments: d6885.diff
>
>
> ReuseFactory used to help reduce object allocations when converting
> numbers/booleans from primitive types to object types. After DERBY-2383 and
> DERBY-6230, the ReuseFactory methods are just wrappers around standard
> library methods such as Integer.valueOf() and Long.valueOf().
> Callers could just as easily call the corresponding valueOf() method
> directly, or rely on auto-boxing. Both ways use the same cache as
> ReuseFactory currently does, so ReuseFactory has no purpose anymore.
> One exception: ReuseFactory.getZeroLenByteArray() is still used and provides
> value, as it avoids the allocation cost when an empty byte array is needed.
> The ArrayUtil class is probably just as good a home for it, so I propose we
> move it there and remove the ReuseFactory class.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
