On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 11:46:20 GMT, Jaikiran Pai <j...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>>> Right now, the sole usage of the `monitoredHostServiceLoader` instance is >>> within a `synchronized (monitoredHosts) {...}` block within a method. So it >>> wouldn't require this `assert`. >> >> Okay, I guess part of me wonders why this field is needed in the first >> place. Why can't getMonitoredHost just create a ServiceLoader instead >> instead of trying to share between threads? > >> > Right now, the sole usage of the `monitoredHostServiceLoader` instance is >> > within a `synchronized (monitoredHosts) {...}` block within a method. So >> > it wouldn't require this `assert`. >> >> Okay, I guess part of me wonders why this field is needed in the first >> place. Why can't getMonitoredHost just create a ServiceLoader instead >> instead of trying to share between threads? > > > It can and that works too. That was one of the alternatives I had initially > tried. I explain in this previous comment > https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/16805#issuecomment-1825194163 the reason > why I thought sharing the ServiceLoader might be better. Do you think I > should just use the local ServiceLoader approach instead? > It can and that works too. That was one of the alternatives I had initially > tried. I explain in this previous comment [#16805 > (comment)](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/16805#issuecomment-1825194163) > the reason why I thought sharing the ServiceLoader might be better. Do you > think I should just use the local ServiceLoader approach instead? I assume almost all usages just fetch the iterator just once, in which case the provider cache doesn't help. So yes, I think I would be tempted to just remove the field and make this a lot simpler. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/16805#discussion_r1404274170