Hi Daniel,
Good point, I assumed that this general purpose parameterized
IdentityWrapper class can easily be leveraged for similar fixes if
needed. As currently, only Provider type is used so it doesn't really
needs to use parameter type. I will update and re-test.
My local build and testing runs fine. I thought my mach5 job comes back
ok as well. I will re-submit mach5 with the updated webrev just to be safe.
Regards,
Valerie
On 5/16/2019 1:55 AM, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
Hi Valerie,
This looks good to me.
I just wonder why IdentityWrapper has a parameter type as it
seems it's only used with T = Provider.
I mean - this is fine - and I understand why you did it this way
as the general purpose parameterized class is much easier to name,
but I wonder if you wouldn't get a "rawtype" warning at line 418 if
you compiled that with -Xlint.
best regards,
-- daniel
On 15/05/2019 20:11, Valerie Peng wrote:
I updated the webrev to switch to ConcurrentHashMap. The javadoc spec
of computeIfAbsent method cautioned that the mapping func should be
short and simple and must not attempt to update other mappings of
this map. Provider verification code does not quite fit the above
criteria for the mapping. So, I did not use computeIfAbsent method
and just made minor update to webrev.01 with Xuelei's suggestion of
re-checking the cache again inside the synchronized block.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~valeriep/7107615/webrev.03/
Comments?
Thanks,
Valerie
