On Sep 23, 2013, at 3:17 PM, Nicolas Cellier <[email protected]> wrote:
> Here is my 100% personal opinion: > > I don't like the copyShuffle. > To me, the rules are quite clear: > sort shuffle reverse etc... -> perform modification in place > sorted shuffled reversed etc... -> answer a copy > I hope the methods comments are clear. Does PBE tells about these > conventions? It would be a good thing. I do not remember. Because probably that we wrote it before. I will log it and see for the next release of PBE. > And I don't like to have mutexes in base library, the less we have, the > better. > If a user is going to modify the same object concurrently, he/she takes care > of mutual exclusion. > > > 2013/9/23 Max Leske <[email protected]> > Sven suggested posting this on the list for discussion, so here you go: > >> Maybe this should be discussed on the list, your are going to break API. >> >> Note that there is also #sort and #sorted with similar copy behavior. >> >> Also, I am not sure that basic operations should use mutexes to protect >> themselves by default: there is a cost when you are a single threaded user. >> Even in Java there are synchronized and non-synchronized versions of >> collections. IMHO, the protection should happen in your app, and basic >> collections do not have to be thread safe. >> >> Sven >> >>> #shuffle does not use Collection>>mutexForPicking as other users of >>> #randomForPicking demonstrate. This can lead to race conditions (found in >>> our application). >>> >>> In addition, there are now #shuffle, #shuffled, #shuffleBy: and >>> #shuffledBy: where #shuffled and #shuffledBy: shuffle a copy and answers >>> that. This is very confusing. >>> >>> I propose a fix where #shuffled and #shuffledBy: are renamed to >>> #copyShuffle and #copyShuffledBy: and moved to the "copying" protocol. >>> #shuffle and #copyShuffle will use the mutex to prevent race conditions. >
