Mike, Would it make sense to rewrite get() in terms of getOrDefault() to reduce duplication?
Thanks Sent from my phone On Dec 9, 2013 10:40 PM, "Mike Duigou" <mike.dui...@oracle.com> wrote: > Hello all; > > I've posted a webrev for review which corrects the problem and adds > appropriate tests. > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mduigou/JDK-8029795/0/webrev/ > > I also updated the documentation to mention that getOrDefault as well as > the replace methods generate access events. > > Mike > > On Dec 9 2013, at 02:11 , Paul Sandoz <paul.san...@oracle.com> wrote: > > > Hi Roman, > > > > On Dec 8, 2013, at 10:29 PM, Roman Leventov <leven...@ya.ru> wrote: > >> Especially getDefault(). Doesn't this violate principle of least > astonishment? Details and proof: > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/20440136/why-doesnt-new-map-methods-generate-entry-accesses-on-linkedhashmap > >> > > > > Thanks. I believe that all the new (default) Map methods but > getOrDefault behave correctly. So i think it is a bug, we need to add > something like the following to LinkedHashMap: > > > > public V getOrDefault(Object key, V defaultValue) { > > Node<K,V> e; > > if ((e = getNode(hash(key), key)) == null) > > return defaultValue; > > if (accessOrder) > > afterNodeAccess(e); > > return e.value; > > } > > > > and also update the documentation to clarify (via the implementation > specification of the default methods it can be inferred what the behaviour > is, but that ain't obvious). > > > > I have logged this bug: > > > > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8029795 > > > > Paul. > > > > > > > >
