On Mar 11, 2015, at 12:34 AM, Brent Christian brent.christ...@oracle.com
wrote:
Hi, Paul
On 3/10/15 8:29 AM, Paul Sandoz wrote:
On the Map.compute* methods.
Perhaps we can reuse similar language to that we added for Matcher:
* The mapping function should not modify this map during
Hi,
Here is an updated treatment of computeIfAbsent():
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bchristi/8071667/webrev.1/
There's a webrev, as well as built docs for Map[1], ConcurrentMap[2],
and HashMap[3] (and I now realize there should be Hashtable as well).
I've made use of @implSpec and friends in
Hi Brent,
On the Map.compute* methods.
Perhaps we can reuse similar language to that we added for Matcher:
The mapping function should not modify this map during computation. This
method will, on a best-effort basis, throw a
ConcurrentModification if such modification is detected.
It's
Hi, Paul
On 3/10/15 8:29 AM, Paul Sandoz wrote:
On the Map.compute* methods.
Perhaps we can reuse similar language to that we added for Matcher:
* The mapping function should not modify this map during computation.
* This method will, on a best-effort basis, throw a
* ConcurrentModification
Nevermind, sorry somehow I missed the previous emails in the thread.
On Friday, March 6, 2015 3:57 PM, Ben Manes ben_ma...@yahoo.com wrote:
I'd recommend that the exception thrown should be an IllegalStateException.
This is documented in ConcurrentHashMap's computeIfAbsent as,
* @throws
I'd recommend that the exception thrown should be an IllegalStateException.
This is documented in ConcurrentHashMap's computeIfAbsent as,
* @throws IllegalStateException if the computation detectably
* attempts a recursive update to this map that would
* otherwise never complete
Hi. I'm picking this back up now.
In Map/HashMap, there are already two methods that accept lambdas and
throw a CME:
forEach(BiConsumer)
replaceAll(BiFunction)
The Map interface documents these methods to state that Exceptions are
relayed to the caller, and has an @throws CME tag if an
On 2/5/15 12:46 AM, Paul Sandoz wrote:
On Feb 5, 2015, at 1:36 AM, Brent Christian
brent.christ...@oracle.com wrote:
I prefer this approach of discouraging/preventing side-effects via
CME, rather than allowing them.
...
Regarding the default methods:
Would we be able to make a best-effort
On Feb 5, 2015, at 1:45 AM, Doug Lea d...@cs.oswego.edu wrote:
On 02/04/2015 05:01 AM, Paul Sandoz wrote:
So i propose:
- the functions should be side-effect free.
...
- concurrent map implementations should, on a best-effort basis, detect
non-termination situations and fail with
On Feb 5, 2015, at 1:36 AM, Brent Christian brent.christ...@oracle.com wrote:
I prefer this approach of discouraging/preventing side-effects via CME,
rather than allowing them. Keep the functions functional, as it were.
If there are situations where determining the mapping for one key
Hi,
I think we should as consistent as possible about the functions being
side-effect free when applied to bulk operations. A method such as
computeIfAbsent can be viewed as a bulk operation in that it may perform two or
more dependent actions (they are just not as bulky as forEach).
It's
I prefer this approach of discouraging/preventing side-effects via CME,
rather than allowing them. Keep the functions functional, as it were.
If there are situations where determining the mapping for one key
necessitates making additional changes to the Map, that should be coded
some other
On 02/04/2015 05:01 AM, Paul Sandoz wrote:
So i propose:
- the functions should be side-effect free.
...
- concurrent map implementations should, on a best-effort basis, detect
non-termination situations and fail with ISE.
We did this as part of changes to better detect recursive
On 2/3/15 4:01 PM, Brent Christian wrote:
The code in bug 8071667 [1] passes a mappingFunction to computeIfAbsent() which
itself put()s a sufficient number of additional entries into the HashMap to
cause a resize/rehash. As a result, computeIfAbsent() doesn't add the new entry
at the proper
Hi,
The code in bug 8071667 [1] passes a mappingFunction to
computeIfAbsent() which itself put()s a sufficient number of additional
entries into the HashMap to cause a resize/rehash. As a result,
computeIfAbsent() doesn't add the new entry at the proper place in the
HashMap.
While one
15 matches
Mail list logo
