Review Request -- 5045147 : When TreeMap is empty explicitly check for null keys in put() [updated]
jason_mehrens at hotmail.com
Tue Mar 15 17:05:28 UTC 2011
I was one of the people that provided feedback on Mike's patch. In my case, it was a mishap of reply to sender vs. reply to all. I don't have the original email but, the result are visible in the test case that Mike wrote. My main concern with the old patch that if you use a raw type (think legacy code) you can poison a TreeMap/TreeSet with non-null object that cannot be compared. I remembered reviewing that code back in JSR166 maintenance review. I can't take credit for it since the review section of the bug report does a great job of explaining the evolution of the correct patch. http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=5045147
> Subject: Re: Review Request -- 5045147 : When TreeMap is empty explicitly check for null keys in put() [updated]
> From: mike.duigou at oracle.com
> Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 09:34:00 -0700
> To: spoole at linux.vnet.ibm.com
> CC: core-libs-dev at openjdk.java.net
> On Mar 15 2011, at 02:36 , Steve Poole wrote:
> > On 14/03/11 21:02, Mike Duigou wrote:
> >> I've gotten feedback regarding this issue and I've updated the webrev to use the commented out compare(key, key) test rather than the previously committed solution. I hadn't looked at the commented out code too carefully and had assumed it was pseudo-code rather than an actual solution. It's an improvement over the original solution and reads, to me and apparently others, a lot simpler.
> > Hi - can you post the feedback to the mailing list?
> Hi Steve;
> Sorry, I can't repost them. I'd have preferred that the feedback went to the list but for whatever reasons the two respondents chose to send the feedback privately and I won't repost their private emails. (They are certainly welcome to do so if they feel it matters). Perhaps it was just a case of "Reply to Sender" vs "Reply to All". I don't know. To summarize the messages though, "Just use the commented out code for 504517. It's better than the old patch."
> >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mduigou/5045147/1/webrev/
> >> Also now included is a jtreg unit test.
> >> Mike
More information about the core-libs-dev