Github user justinleet commented on a diff in the pull request:
@@ -437,15 +463,14 @@ public ResultScanner getScanner(byte family, byte
- List<Put> putLog = new ArrayList<>();
--- End diff --
Couldn't you just change this to
```List<Put> putLog = Collections. synchronizedList(new ArrayList<>());```?
I'd still keep the `ImmutableList.copyOf()` in `getPutLog()`, because a
synchronized list still requires a synchronized block during iteration and
callers could do whatever. Notably, `ImmutableList.copyOf()` specifically
states "This method is safe to use even when elements is a synchronized or
concurrent collection that is currently being modified by another thread."
At that point, it should be thread-safe. It doesn't expose the underlying
list, the putLog doesn't get iterated over in this class, and it only exposes
thread safe copies of the putLog.
I'm also not convinced that the Supplier solution is actually thread-safe,
which may be my own ignorance. The `get()` itself is thread-safe (per
`memoize()`), but just returns a regular ArrayList (```this.putLog =
Suppliers.memoize(() -> new ArrayList<Put>());```). The `add()` won't
necessarily be thread-safe, because two threads could each call `get()` and
still attempt to put onto the same list at the same time. Assuming that's
correct (which I'd like a second opinion on), it's probably just more that
shuffling things happens to ease the race condition.
Somebody feel free to hop in and correct any misconceptions I have here.
I'm not as familiar with Java's concurrency as I probably (definitely?) should
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket