On 18 August 2012 19:55, sebb <[email protected]> wrote: > I've been unable so far to create a test plan that actually finds a > matching entry in the pairing Set. > > I think this is because a match requires both child and parent class > instances to be identical, and AFAICT this requires both to implement > NoThreadClone. > > However, there aren't many classes that do implement NoThreadClone, > and the ones that do cannot be parents. > > If my analysis is correct, it would be possible to considerably reduce > the number of entries in the pairing Set by checking to see if both > classes implement NoThreadClone before storing anything. > > The Set would still have to be static, but should have few if any entries in > it.
Note: the above analysis is purely about eliminating Set entries that can never match, as these do not affect the code behaviour as it is currently. It is a separate investigation as to whether the Set can be made a class variable - or even dropped entirely.
