RFR 8005704: Update ConcurrentHashMap to v8

Peter Levart peter.levart at gmail.com
Wed May 29 14:28:42 UTC 2013

On 05/29/2013 04:07 PM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
>  ... and the links to the updated spedcdiff / webrev
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~chegar/8005704/ver.01/specdiff/java/util/concurrent/package-summary.html 
>   http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~chegar/8005704/ver.01/webrev/
> -Chris.
> On 29/05/2013 15:06, Chris Hegarty wrote:
>> Mike, Doug,
>> On 28/05/2013 20:07, Mike Duigou wrote:
>>> Hi Chris& Doug;
>>> - I don't feel strongly about the removal of AbstractMap. I don't see
>>> this as very likely to cause problems in real world code though there
>>> is probably some test code somewhere that assigns CHM to an 
>>> AbstractMap.
>> I don't feel strongly about this either, but I think it deserves
>> possibly its own bug number and consideration. I have removed it from
>> this review request, and will a file a new bug to track it.


Why not using Unsafe (which is already used in CHM) to re-use the 
AbstractMap.keySet/values fields? They could even be accessed with 
normal non-volatile read/write although they are declared volatile in 
AbstractMap. Is this to "hacky"?

Regards, Peter

>>> - I am reluctant to deprecate contains(Object) here unless we
>>> deprecate it in Hashtable as well. I recognize that this has been a
>>> source of errors
>>> (https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48755 for one
>>> example). Is it time to deprecate it there as well?
>> Dito for this, removed from this request and should be revisited
>> separately.
>> -Chris.

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list