On 03/05/2018 12:49 PM, Phil Race wrote:

I originally thought you were referring to the Hashtable in the test ?
No. I meant Hashtable created in line 151.
That really doesn't matter.
If you are referring to the use of hashtable in the JDK class then I
think it is safer to leave it as is. Hashtable is provably safe here, and
for HashMap you'd need to ensure that concurrent read and write
are safe. The HashMap is created only once but may be updated
more than once, even if it is not likely in real world use (multiple locales in use).
Can you point to place where this Hashmap is updated other then where it is initialized?


The performance cost here is negligible, probably not measurable in
real world code where there is no contention for the lock
This requires evidence. You need to know the load characteristic to state that. If collisions are proven to be rare the optimistic locking is preferable. But still, I don't see any grounds to have any collisions since these are read-only data. Synchronization may degrade performance a lot and may be a source for deadlocks so it's always better to avoid it.

--Semyon

-phil.

On 03/05/2018 11:21 AM, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:

On 03/05/2018 10:41 AM, Krishna Addepalli wrote:

Hi Semyon,

Thank you for the review. I don’t see any reason why HashMap can’t be used here. But could you clarify what you meant by “synchronization is surplus here”?

Sure. Hashtable is synchronized. And since the locale bundle is created once now and then is only read there is no need to have extra thread access synchronization.

Besides, whether we use HashMap /Hashtable, the fix for this particular bug still remains.

As for changing (if that is necessary), I think we should address it in a separate bug?

It is not unrelated completely since you are fixing a performance issue. I suggest to fix it for one since it is easy.

--Semyon

Thanks,

Krishna

*From:*Semyon Sadetsky
*Sent:* Monday, March 5, 2018 10:39 PM
*To:* Krishna Addepalli <krishna.addepa...@oracle.com>; Philip Race <philip.r...@oracle.com>
*Cc:* swing-dev@openjdk.java.net
*Subject:* Re: <Swing Dev> [11][JDK-8197785]javax.accessibility.AccessibilityBundle will reload the ResourceBundle for every call to toDisplayString

On 03/05/2018 09:00 AM, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:

    Hi Krishna,

    Is there any reason to use Hashmap. It seems the synchronization
    is surplus here and its better to use HashMap.

I meant Hashtable. Sorry.

--Semyon

    --Semyon

    On 03/05/2018 05:39 AM, Krishna Addepalli wrote:

        Hi Phil

        Thank you for the review.

        I have checked the accessibility package, and found that
        contains is used with a Vector of AccessibleState objects in
        the file AccessibleStateset.

        However in AccessibilityBundle, the table is used to store a
        set of values associated with a particular locale, and going
        by the context, I find little reason that using contains is
        intentional here.

        And regarding the testcase, the thought of making it
        headless crossed my mind while writing it, but I was not
        sure if just creating a Button is allowed in headless mode.

        Fortunately, I modified the testcase enough that, no swing
        widgets need to be created, and we can safely run the test
        in headless mode.

        Here is the new webrev:
        http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kaddepalli/8197785/webrev01/
        <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Ekaddepalli/8197785/webrev01/>

        Thanks,

        Krishna

        *From:*Philip Race
        *Sent:* Saturday, March 3, 2018 9:44 PM
        *To:* Krishna Addepalli <krishna.addepa...@oracle.com>
        <mailto:krishna.addepa...@oracle.com>
        *Cc:* swing-dev@openjdk.java.net
        <mailto:swing-dev@openjdk.java.net>
        *Subject:* Re: <Swing Dev>
        [11][JDK-8197785]javax.accessibility.AccessibilityBundle
        will reload the ResourceBundle for every call to toDisplayString

        The fix is straightforward and I've seen this bug pattern
        before.
        In fact there may even have been a sweep for uses of
        contains() to make sure it was as intended,
        but if so it wasn't thorough enough.
        But I'm wondering why the test extends Button and not JButton ?
        I'm then further wondering if it could then be made headless
        .. ie no need to create or display a Frame ?

        -phil.

        On 3/3/18, 6:30 AM, Krishna Addepalli wrote:

            Hi All,

            Please review a simple fix for JDK-8197785:
            https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8197785

            Webrev:
            http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kaddepalli/8197785/webrev00/
            <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Ekaddepalli/8197785/webrev00/>

            As the bug description suggests,
            AccessibleBundle.loadResourceBundle has the line
            “table.contains” which causes it to reload the resource
            bundle for each call.

            Changing it to “table.containsKey” fixes the problem.

            Thanks,

            Krishna




Reply via email to