Code Review Request for Bug #4802647 (original) (raw)

chris hegarty chris.hegarty at oracle.com
Wed Dec 28 09:22:10 UTC 2011

On 23/12/2011 21:55, David Holmes wrote:

Hi Brandon,

This looks okay to me.

Thumbs up from me too.

-Chris.

Just to clarify for other readers, the change to CopyOnWriteArrayList doesn't use Objects.requireNonNull because this code has to sync up with Doug Lea's jsr166 repository which runs on multiple version of the platform (some without requireNonNull).

Also CopyOnWriteArraySet is fixed implicitly by the fix to CopyOnWriteArrayList. David On 24/12/2011 3:30 AM, Brandon Passanisi wrote: Here's an updated webrev for review for 4802647, which also contains a fix for 7123424. 7123424, as noted below, is the newly filed bug regarding the same bug behavior for CopyOnWriteArrayList and CopyOnWriteArraySet. It seems best to combine the fix for both into one webrev, so this webrev for review is a reflection of this:

Webrev URL: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bpassani/48026477123424/3/webrev/ Thanks. On 12/21/2011 11:23 AM, Brandon Passanisi wrote: Yes, my intent was "extends AbstractSet" instead of "extends NewAbstractCollection". I have reflected this in the updated webrev below. Here's the information:

Webrev URL: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bpassani/4802647/2/webrev/ Bug URL: http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/viewbug.do?bugid=4802647 1. In MOAT.java, I changed NewAbstractSet to extend AbstractSet. 2. The changes in 1) resulted in finding out that AbstractSet has the same bug behavior with removeAll(null). AbstractSet.removeAll(Collection<?> c) was updated accordingly. 3. I filed bug 7123424 to account for the same bug behavior found in CopyOnWriteArrayList and CopyOnWriteArraySet. 4. It was advised that I skip the failing behavior of CopyOnWriteArrayList and CopyOnWriteArraySet for removeAll(null)/retainAll(null) in MOAT.java and provide a comment about how the skip needs to be removed once bug 7123424 is fixed. This is the reason for the instanceof checks that were recently added and the added comments. Thanks. On 12/21/2011 7:52 AM, Jason Mehrens wrote: > Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 10:12:02 +1000 > From: david.holmes at oracle.com > To: brandon.passanisi at oracle.com > Subject: Re: Code Review Request for Bug #4802647 > CC: core-libs-dev at openjdk.java.net > > Brandon, > > I don't see the purpose of NewAbstractSet. It is identical to > NewAbstractCollection.

I would assume the intent was "extends AbstractSet" instead of "extends NewAbstractCollection". Jason

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list