On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 06:11:56 GMT, Xue-Lei Andrew Fan <xue...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Some java/security classes apply the below coding style, >> >> Set<T> set = ...; >> Set<T> unmodifiableSet = Collections.unmodifiableSet(new HashSet<>(set)); >> >> It may be unnecessary to wrap that `set` with HashSet before creating >> `unmodifiableSet`. >> Some usages on `Collections.unmodifiableList` and >> `Collections.unmodifiableMap` have the same issue. > > Note: Please don't backport this update unless > [JDK-6323374](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-6323374) is backport as > well. > @XueleiFan Thanks for your review and more infos! > > I just dug a bit history and found > [JDK-8258514](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8258514) applied > `List::copyOf` instead of `Collections::unmodifiableList`. Now, I also follow > this way and use `List/Set/Map::copyOf`. The use of copyOf for the update is mainly because the Collections::unmodifiableList was not updated yet at that time. It could be simpler to keep the behavior consistent by using Collections::unmodifiableList in this update. Otherwise, more effect may be required to check if the use of copyOf could change the behaviors. ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/15008#issuecomment-1652370187
