On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 11:46:20 GMT, Jaikiran Pai <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Right now, the sole usage of the `monitoredHostServiceLoader` instance is
>>> within a `synchronized (monitoredHosts) {...}` block within a method. So it
>>> wouldn't require this `assert`.
>>
>> Okay, I guess part of me wonders why this field is needed in the first
>> place. Why can't getMonitoredHost just create a ServiceLoader instead
>> instead of trying to share between threads?
>
>> > Right now, the sole usage of the `monitoredHostServiceLoader` instance is
>> > within a `synchronized (monitoredHosts) {...}` block within a method. So
>> > it wouldn't require this `assert`.
>>
>> Okay, I guess part of me wonders why this field is needed in the first
>> place. Why can't getMonitoredHost just create a ServiceLoader instead
>> instead of trying to share between threads?
>
>
> It can and that works too. That was one of the alternatives I had initially
> tried. I explain in this previous comment
> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/16805#issuecomment-1825194163 the reason
> why I thought sharing the ServiceLoader might be better. Do you think I
> should just use the local ServiceLoader approach instead?
> It can and that works too. That was one of the alternatives I had initially
> tried. I explain in this previous comment [#16805
> (comment)](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/16805#issuecomment-1825194163)
> the reason why I thought sharing the ServiceLoader might be better. Do you
> think I should just use the local ServiceLoader approach instead?
I assume almost all usages just fetch the iterator just once, in which case the
provider cache doesn't help. So yes, I think I would be tempted to just remove
the field and make this a lot simpler.
-------------
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/16805#discussion_r1404274170
