Here's what I'm changing that contains method to:
private static boolean contains(final Marker parent, final
Marker... localParents) {
//noinspection ForLoopReplaceableByForEach
for (int i = 0, localParentsLength = localParents.length; i <
localParentsLength; i++) {
final Marker marker = localParents[i];
if (marker == parent) {
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
On 21 April 2014 19:42, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote:
> Which brings up another issue with markers. In MarkerManager, we have a
> volatile array of Markers. Here's the message from IntelliJ:
>
> Reports array fields which are declared as *volatile*. Such fields may be
> confusing, as accessing the array itself follows the rules for
> *volatile*fields, but accessing the array's contents does not. If such
> volatile
> access is needed to array contents, the JDK5.0
> *java.util.concurrent.atomic* classes should be used instead.
>
> Is this relevant here?
>
>
> On 21 April 2014 19:37, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> 1) that would be my bad. I usually replace those with foreach loops where
>> possible. It's usually good to comment in those cases. I'll revert that and
>> comment.
>>
>> 2) that makes more sense than the exception
>>
>>
>> On 21 April 2014 18:46, Bruce Brouwer <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> I saw that some small changes were being made to the Markers. I had a
>>> few thoughts regarding them:
>>>
>>> 1) Use of array iterator instead of indexed for loop.
>>> for (Marker marker : localParents)
>>> instead of
>>> for (int i = 0; i < localParents.length; i++)
>>>
>>> When I was doing my performance benchmarks, I was finding the latter to
>>> be faster. I'm guessing this is simply because a new Iterable object needs
>>> to be created to iterate over the array.
>>>
>>> For most methods, such as add, remove, this was not a big deal. But for
>>> the isInstanceOf and checkParent methods, we want those to be as fast as
>>> possible.
>>>
>>> 2) isInstanceOf(String markerName)
>>> Instead of throwing an IllegalArgumentException when a marker of name
>>> markerName doesn't exist, why don't we simply return false? I don't want an
>>> IllegalArgumentException to happen because I'm testing a markerName.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Bruce Brouwer
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
>
--
Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
