> After I've renamed remove branch GitHub for some reason has closed original
> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/2744, so I've decided to recreate it.
Сергей Цыпанов has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 11 commits:
-
On Mon, 26 Jul 2021 08:27:20 GMT, Сергей Цыпанов
wrote:
>> After I've renamed remove branch GitHub for some reason has closed original
>> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/2744, so I've decided to recreate it.
>
> Сергей Цыпанов has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
>
> After I've renamed remove branch GitHub for some reason has closed original
> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/2744, so I've decided to recreate it.
Сергей Цыпанов has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 10 commits:
-
> After I've renamed remove branch GitHub for some reason has closed original
> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/2744, so I've decided to recreate it.
Сергей Цыпанов has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains ten commits:
-
> After I've renamed remove branch GitHub for some reason has closed original
> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/2744, so I've decided to recreate it.
Сергей Цыпанов has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains eight commits:
> After I've renamed remove branch GitHub for some reason has closed original
> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/2744, so I've decided to recreate it.
Сергей Цыпанов has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains seven commits:
After I've renamed remove branch GitHub for some reason has closed original
https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/2744, so I've decided to recreate it.
-
Commit messages:
- Merge branch 'master' into 8263561
- Merge branch 'master' into purge-linked-list
- 8263561: Use sized
> The usage of `LinkedList` is senseless and can be replaced with either
> `ArrayList` or `ArrayDeque` which are both more compact and effective.
>
> jdk:tier1 and jdk:tier2 are both ok
Сергей Цыпанов has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
merge or a rebase. The
> The usage of `LinkedList` is senseless and can be replaced with either
> `ArrayList` or `ArrayDeque` which are both more compact and effective.
>
> jdk:tier1 and jdk:tier2 are both ok
Сергей Цыпанов has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
commit since the last
> The usage of `LinkedList` is senseless and can be replaced with either
> `ArrayList` or `ArrayDeque` which are both more compact and effective.
>
> jdk:tier1 and jdk:tier2 are both ok
Сергей Цыпанов has refreshed the contents of this pull request, and previous
commits have been removed. The
On Mon, 24 May 2021 10:13:55 GMT, Сергей Цыпанов
wrote:
>> But don't people access these internal code at their own risk, as jdk may
>> change these code at any time without notice?
>
> True, I just wonder whether it's OK to change internals when we know for sure
> that this breaks 3rd party
On Mon, 24 May 2021 09:25:08 GMT, liach
wrote:
>> Should we then revert the changes to `JarIndex`?
>
> But don't people access these internal code at their own risk, as jdk may
> change these code at any time without notice?
True, I just wonder whether it's OK to change internals when we know
On Mon, 24 May 2021 07:13:29 GMT, Сергей Цыпанов
wrote:
>> Just for completeness, they're using the add-exports:
>> https://github.com/AdoptOpenJDK/IcedTea-Web/blob/master/launchers/itw-modularjdk.args#L19
>
> Should we then revert the changes to `JarIndex`?
But don't people access these
On Fri, 21 May 2021 15:12:20 GMT, Thiago Henrique Hüpner
wrote:
>>> IcedTea-Web seems to be using this method reflectively:
>>> https://github.com/AdoptOpenJDK/IcedTea-Web/blob/master/common/src/main/java/net/adoptopenjdk/icedteaweb/jdk89access/JarIndexAccess.java#L80
>>
>> I assume this
On Fri, 21 May 2021 14:18:16 GMT, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
>> The usage of `LinkedList` is senseless and can be replaced with either
>> `ArrayList` or `ArrayDeque` which are both more compact and effective.
>>
>> jdk:tier1 and jdk:tier2 are both ok
>
>
On Fri, 21 May 2021 14:15:53 GMT, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
>> The usage of `LinkedList` is senseless and can be replaced with either
>> `ArrayList` or `ArrayDeque` which are both more compact and effective.
>>
>> jdk:tier1 and jdk:tier2 are both ok
>
>
On Fri, 21 May 2021 14:22:47 GMT, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
>> The usage of `LinkedList` is senseless and can be replaced with either
>> `ArrayList` or `ArrayDeque` which are both more compact and effective.
>>
>> jdk:tier1 and jdk:tier2 are both ok
>
> I don't remember all the comments you have
On Fri, 21 May 2021 15:00:15 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/jdk/internal/util/jar/JarIndex.java line 154:
>>
>>> 152: * @param fileName the key of the mapping
>>> 153: */
>>> 154: public List get(String fileName) {
>>
>> IcedTea-Web seems to be using this
On Fri, 21 May 2021 14:52:21 GMT, Thiago Henrique Hüpner
wrote:
> IcedTea-Web seems to be using this method reflectively:
> https://github.com/AdoptOpenJDK/IcedTea-Web/blob/master/common/src/main/java/net/adoptopenjdk/icedteaweb/jdk89access/JarIndexAccess.java#L80
I assume this doesn't work
On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 10:48:33 GMT, Сергей Цыпанов
wrote:
> The usage of `LinkedList` is senseless and can be replaced with either
> `ArrayList` or `ArrayDeque` which are both more compact and effective.
>
> jdk:tier1 and jdk:tier2 are both ok
On Fri, 21 May 2021 13:13:04 GMT, Сергей Цыпанов
wrote:
> Hi guys, any more comments here? Please ping me if I've missed something
I suspect this will require renaming some fields and changing comments, e.g.
requestList is no longer a good name for the field in AbstractPoller, its
comments
On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 10:48:33 GMT, Сергей Цыпанов
wrote:
> The usage of `LinkedList` is senseless and can be replaced with either
> `ArrayList` or `ArrayDeque` which are both more compact and effective.
>
> jdk:tier1 and jdk:tier2 are both ok
I don't remember all the comments you have
On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 10:48:33 GMT, Сергей Цыпанов
wrote:
> The usage of `LinkedList` is senseless and can be replaced with either
> `ArrayList` or `ArrayDeque` which are both more compact and effective.
>
> jdk:tier1 and jdk:tier2 are both ok
Hi guys, any more comments here? Please ping me if
On Mon, 15 Mar 2021 06:56:00 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> Nothing outside of the JDK should be hacking into this private field of a
>> non-exposed class, this should not be a concern here.
>
>> @AlanBateman so is it ok to keep `ArrayLists`?
>
> One thing to look out for is usages of 2-arg add
On Sun, 14 Mar 2021 17:26:07 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> Looks like it's never specified in JavaDoc which particular implementation
>> of List is used in fields of affected classes, so it's quite odd to me that
>> someone would rely on that when using reflection. But your point about
>>
On Sun, 14 Mar 2021 17:26:07 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> Looks like it's never specified in JavaDoc which particular implementation
>> of List is used in fields of affected classes, so it's quite odd to me that
>> someone would rely on that when using reflection. But your point about
>>
On Sun, 14 Mar 2021 17:18:11 GMT, Сергей Цыпанов
wrote:
>> If that's the only use case, I recommend changing the return type to a
>> deque, and replace the linked list with an array deque instead (as done
>> elsewhere in this pr)
>
> Looks like it's never specified in JavaDoc which particular
On Sun, 14 Mar 2021 15:02:03 GMT, liach
wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/jdk/internal/loader/URLClassPath.java line 220:
>>
>>> 218: return Collections.emptyList();
>>> 219: }
>>> 220: List result = new ArrayList<>();
>>
>> We'd better be cautious about this
On Sun, 14 Mar 2021 14:58:11 GMT, Yi Yang wrote:
>> The usage of `LinkedList` is senseless and can be replaced with either
>> `ArrayList` or `ArrayDeque` which are both more compact and effective.
>>
>> jdk:tier1 and jdk:tier2 are both ok
>
>
On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 15:32:57 GMT, liach
wrote:
> Are linked lists worse for addition even in cases where addition to array
> list or deque requires resize and copying? i thought that's the advantage of
> linked list.
As far as I know `LinkedList` is always worse than `ArrayList` and
On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 10:48:33 GMT, Сергей Цыпанов
wrote:
> The usage of `LinkedList` is senseless and can be replaced with either
> `ArrayList` or `ArrayDeque` which are both more compact and effective.
>
> jdk:tier1 and jdk:tier2 are both ok
On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 10:48:33 GMT, Сергей Цыпанов
wrote:
> The usage of `LinkedList` is senseless and can be replaced with either
> `ArrayList` or `ArrayDeque` which are both more compact and effective.
>
> jdk:tier1 and jdk:tier2 are both ok
Are linked lists worse for addition even in cases
The usage of `LinkedList` is senseless and can be replaced with either
`ArrayList` or `ArrayDeque` which are both more compact and effective.
jdk:tier1 and jdk:tier2 are both ok
-
Commit messages:
- Remove remaining usages of LinkedList in java.base
Changes:
33 matches
Mail list logo
