On 06/19/2013 01:13 AM, Mike Duigou wrote:
On Jun 18 2013, at 05:19 , Doug Lea wrote:
On 06/17/13 19:30, Mike Duigou wrote:
I had to add the improved default for ConcurrentMap which was present in the
lambda repo in order to have correct behaviour. Since getOrDefault is already
in ConcurrentMap I will include this but we have to be careful when we do a jsr
166 syncup to make sure that the defaults don't get lost.
Now synched up on my side.
-Doug
Per a suggestion from Remi I updated the ConcurrentMap.replaceAll default to
use forEach. This trades off the entrySet iterator overhead for creation of a
capturing BiConsumer lambda.
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/raw-diff/1f7cbe4829fe/src/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/ConcurrentMap.java
Mike
Hi Mike, Remi,
Since forEach implementation can be taken from default Map.forEach in
some implementations of ConcurrentMap, and that implementation is based
on entrySet Iterator, isn't it dangerous for this to trigger
ConcurrentModificationException in some implementation of ConcurrentMap?
I see nothing in the spec. of ConcurrentMap that suggests it's entrySet
iterators are never fail-fast. They can be prepared for modifications
from other threads (synchronization), but may not tolerate re-entrant calls.
For example some implementation of (Concurrent)Map could be structurally
modified as a result of Map.replace(key, old, new) - imagine a
ConcurrentWeakHashMap that expunges stale entries on each call - and
forEach iteration may not be prepared to handle such situations.
Regards, Peter
