Updated per Daniel's feedback on IdentityWrapper:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~valeriep/7107615/webrev.04/
Mach5 run is clean.
Thanks,
Valerie
On 5/21/2019 5:51 PM, Valerie Peng wrote:
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
