On Nov 24 2013, at 16:31 , David Holmes <david.hol...@oracle.com> wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> There is still no clear spec for what should happen if the param value is
> null.
I feel very uncomfortable the status quo of with null being ignored, used for a
sentinel and also as value. The relations between null and values in this
method are just too complicated.
Currently:
- The provided value may be either null or non-null. Is null a legal value? It
depends upon:
- Is there an existing value?
- Does the Map allow null values?
- Does the function allow null values?
- Existing null values are treated as absent.
- If a null value is passed should we remove this mapping or add it to
the map?
- null might not be accepted by the map
- The associated value would still be regarded as absent for
future operations.
- The function may return null to signal "remove".
In particular I dislike adding a null entry to the map if there is no current
mapping (or mapped to null). It seems like it should be invariant whether we
end up with an associated value. If null is used to signify "remove" then
map.contains(key) will return variable results depending upon the initial
state. Having the behaviour vary based upon whether the map allows null values
would be even worse.
So I would like to suggest that we require value to be non-null. I have
provisionally updated the spec and impls accordingly.
> The parenthesized part is wrong.
I think that's overzealous copying from compute(). I have removed it.
>
> Also you have changed the method implementation not just the implDoc so the
> bug synopsis is somewhat misleading.
I will correct this. More changes were made than I originally expected. New
synopsis will be "Map.merge implementations should refuse null value param"
I have updated the webrev.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mduigou/JDK-8029055/1/webrev/
Thanks,
Mike
>
> Thanks,
> David
>
> On 23/11/2013 10:25 AM, Mike Duigou wrote:
>> We'll be using https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8029055 for this
>> issue.
>>
>> I've posted a webrev here:
>>
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mduigou/JDK-8029055/0/webrev/
>>
>> There is an identical change in ConcurrentMap's merge().
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> On Nov 22 2013, at 16:01 , Henry Jen <henry....@oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 11/21/2013 06:33 PM, David Holmes wrote:
>>>> On 22/11/2013 5:02 AM, Louis Wasserman wrote:
>>>>> While I agree that case should be specified, I'm not certain I follow why
>>>>> that's what's going on here.
>>>>>
>>>>> The weird condition is that if oldValue is null, not value; oldValue
>>>>> is the
>>>>> old result of map.get(key). The Javadoc seems not just unspecified, but
>>>>> actively wrong. Here's a worked example:
>>>>>
>>>>> Map<String, Integer> map = new HashMap<>();
>>>>> map.merge("foo", 3, Integer::plus);
>>>>> Integer fooValue = map.get("foo");
>>>>>
>>>>> Going through the Javadoc-specified default implementation:
>>>>>
>>>>> V oldValue = map.get(key); // oldValue is null
>>>>> V newValue = (oldValue == null) ? value :
>>>>> remappingFunction.apply(oldValue, value);
>>>>> // newValue is set to value, which is 3
>>>>> if (newValue == null) // newValue is nonnull, branch not taken
>>>>> map.remove(key);
>>>>> else if (oldValue == null) // oldValue is null, branch taken
>>>>> map.remove(key); // removes the entry from the map
>>>>> else // else if was already triggered, branch not taken
>>>>> map.put(key, newValue);
>>>>>
>>>
>>> Seems like a document bug to me, we should fix this @implSpec.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Henry
>>>
>>
