> So.... taking a step back, what was underlying motivation for the hashCode / > equality changes? IE, what's the bigger problem we were trying to solve?
Before this change, we were maintaining a map from Watcher to NamespaceWatcher so that we could track/remove the wrapped watcher. This is necessary due to this guarantee of ZooKeeper: http://zookeeper.apache.org/doc/trunk/zookeeperProgrammers.html#sc_WatchGuarantees "if the same watch object is registered for an exists and a getData call for the same file and that file is then deleted, the watch object would only be invoked once with the deletion notification for the file.” Given that NamespaceWatcher is an internal wrapper, Curator needs to generate the same NamespaceWatcher for a given client’s Watcher/CuratorWatcher. The map handled this. In the past, this was difficult to manage and had potential memory leaks if the map wasn’t managed correctly. It occurred to me that the map isn’t needed if NamespaceWatcher could have equality/hash values the same as the Watcher that it wraps. My testing proved this. Thoughts? -Jordan > On Feb 9, 2016, at 11:49 AM, Scott Blum <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi guys, > > I'm a practical guy, not a purist, but the 3.0 implementations of > NamespaceWatcher.hashCode() and equals() are bothering me. The reason I care > is that I want to avoid subtle bugs cropping up. > > So here's the problem. > > 1) equals() is not reflexive between NamespaceWatcher and Watcher > > Assuming you have a NamespaceWatcher nw wrapping a Watcher w, the following > code might or might not work: > > container.add(nw) > container.remove(w) > > It depends on whether the underlying container ultimately does "nw.equals(w)" > or "w.equals(nw)". Set.contains() would have the same problem. > > 2) hashCode() and equals() inconsistent with each other > > Because nw.hashCode() != w.hashCode(), lookups in a hashSet or hashMap will > practically never work except by luck. > > hashSet.put(nw) > hashSet.contains(w) > > Most of the time this will return false, except in the exact case where nw > and w happen to have hashCodes that map into the same bucket, and the > equality check is done the "right" order. > > > So.... taking a step back, what was underlying motivation for the hashCode / > equality changes? IE, what's the bigger problem we were trying to solve? > > Scott >
