RFR 8030848: Collections.sort(List l, Comparator) should defer to List.sort(Comparator )
Alan.Bateman at oracle.com
Fri Jan 10 14:01:27 UTC 2014
On 10/01/2014 11:21, Paul Sandoz wrote:
> When we added the List.sort method the default implementation deferred to Collections.sort.
> This is the wrong way around, since any existing use of Collections.sort say with ArrayList will not avail of the optimal implementation provided by ArrayList.sort.
> To resolve this the implementation of Collections.sort can be moved to List.sort and Collections.sort can defer to List.sort.
> Code changes are here:
> I made some tweaks to Arrays.sort to preserve cases when the Comparator is null.
> Existing tests provide good coverage and there are no regressions when i run j.u. tests locally.
> I am not happy with the current documentation though, i think that also requires some refactoring, moving stuff from Collections.sort to List.sort and explicitly stating what the current implementation of Collections.sort does. I believe this requires no spec changes even though it may appear so. Thoughts?
> Also, i am concerned that this change could cause stack overflows for list implementations that override sort and still defer to Collections.sort. Implying we should fix this for 8 or quickly in an 8u.
The implementation changes look good. I agree that the javadoc needs
changing as it's otherwise misleading as to what the implementation
actually does. I would think that this should go with the implementation
change rather than as a separate change.
So is the stack overflow concern with List implementations that were
originally developed to target JDK 7 or older? In any case, this is the
type of change more suitable to a major release.
More information about the core-libs-dev