I'd prefer if we didn't incur implicit array allocation cost generating a hash code. My preference is to keep the original implementation.
-ck On Wed, Jan 12, 2022, at 08:50, ggreg...@apache.org wrote: > This is an automated email from the ASF dual-hosted git repository. > > ggregory pushed a commit to branch master > in repository https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/logging-log4j2.git > > commit 857eca786c2027469763e2fea93ed2b4a3c2b6c0 > Author: Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> > AuthorDate: Wed Jan 12 07:09:06 2022 -0500 > > Use final and simpler hashcode generation through Objects. > --- > .../main/java/org/apache/logging/log4j/core/util/Source.java | 12 ++++++------ > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git > a/log4j-core/src/main/java/org/apache/logging/log4j/core/util/Source.java > b/log4j-core/src/main/java/org/apache/logging/log4j/core/util/Source.java > index 9674618..f28c8f8 100644 > --- a/log4j-core/src/main/java/org/apache/logging/log4j/core/util/Source.java > +++ b/log4j-core/src/main/java/org/apache/logging/log4j/core/util/Source.java > @@ -143,15 +143,15 @@ public class Source { > } > > @Override > - public boolean equals(final Object o) { > - if (this == o) { > + public boolean equals(Object obj) { > + if (this == obj) { > return true; > } > - if (!(o instanceof Source)) { > + if (!(obj instanceof Source)) { > return false; > } > - final Source source = (Source) o; > - return Objects.equals(location, source.location); > + Source other = (Source) obj; > + return Objects.equals(location, other.location); > } > > /** > @@ -208,7 +208,7 @@ public class Source { > > @Override > public int hashCode() { > - return 31 + Objects.hashCode(location); > + return Objects.hash(location); > } > > @Override >
