2012/8/2 Phil Race <philip.r...@oracle.com>: > On 8/2/2012 11:52 AM, Yu Lin wrote: > > I haven't looked at the rest but I'll comment on that one. > This is deliberate. The tradeoff is all uses being synchronized versus > the small chance that two threads try to create this map at the same > time, which really doesn't matter. Its just a tiny bit of lost work. > We could have a debate about how uncontended synchronization > is cheap but adding it somewhat defeats the purpose of using > ConcurrentHashMap. Also if there are two threads active here, > meriting the synchronization then the lock probably is contended .. > > Also I am not sure how your patch below would work. > Synchronizing on (null) isn't likely to fix anything. > Instead you just introduced a NullPointerException. >
Thanks for the comments, Phil. I see your point (I agree that the synchronization should be on "this" object if it's needed). > Finally jdk8-dev is probably the "main" list these days. > Should I post this issue to the mailing list of jdk8-dev? Yu
