[concurrency-interest] Race conditions in concurrent collections

Mike Skells mike.skells at ebizz-consulting.com
Sat Sep 24 17:22:39 EDT 2005


Hi,
Surely the logic is wrong here 

If you catch a ConcurrentModificationException  then equals() return false,
because at some time during the evaluation the collection was not equal

Similarly a NoSuchElementException should be caught and the collections
should not be equal unless they are == (in which case we should not the
iterating)

Both ConcurrentModificationException and NoSuchElementException are not
reasonable expected from a .equals() call. This may be an bug in the
java.util packages, but it does not need to be reploduced in j.u.c.

Just my 2c

Mike

> -----Original Message-----
> From: concurrency-interest-bounces at cs.oswego.edu 
> [mailto:concurrency-interest-bounces at cs.oswego.edu] On Behalf 
> Of Martin Buchholz
> Sent: 24 September 2005 22:03
> To: Doug Lea
> Cc: concurrency-interest at altair.cs.oswego.edu
> Subject: Re: [concurrency-interest] Race conditions in 
> concurrent collections
> 
> 
> 
> Doug Lea wrote:
> > Martin Buchholz wrote:
> > 
> >>
> >>One possible strategy for implementing Set.equals would be new 
> >>HashSet(this).equals(new HashSet(other)); which at one stroke 
> >>eliminates concurrency issues
> > 
> > 
> > Although this places the burden on the HashSet(Collection c) 
> > constructor, which is not specified to do anything special 
> in the face 
> > of concurrent modifications of "c" (and in fact is likely to fail).
> 
> Hmmmm.  In the current implementation, this eventually 
> reduces to a standard iterator loop over "c"
> 
> 	Iterator<? extends E> e = c.iterator();
> 	while (e.hasNext()) {
> 	    add(e.next());
> 
> If "c" is not a concurrent collection, then concurrent 
> modification is simply not supposed to work, and users should 
> expect ConcurrentModificationException (or worse).
> 
> If "c" *is* a concurrent collection, then our implementations 
> in j.u.c. try to not have next() fail when hasNext() has just 
> succeeded, but I don't think we promise that.  Supposing we 
> *did* promise that, then new HashSet(c) would always give a 
> "reasonable" result when c is a concurrent collection, and 
> cannot be expected to give a reasonable result when c is not.
> 
> We could of course add a
> try {...} catch (NoSuchElementException) {...} to handle 
> concurrently modified collections where next() might fail.
> 
> Unfortunately, if we implemented equals(Object) using this 
> strategy, we could still have equals return true when the two 
> collections never contained the same elements.  Indeed, there 
> is no way to get all the elements in a concurrent collection 
> in such a way that the returned elements represent a snapshot 
> of a particular point in time, and so there is in general no 
> way to implement an intuitive
> equals() method.  At least, if both collections are quiescent, then
> c.equals(other) should give the expected result.  That is 
> hard to specify in the javadoc, because it depends on 
> cooperation between two unknown collection class implementations.
> 
> Martin
> _______________________________________________
> Concurrency-interest mailing list
> Concurrency-interest at altair.cs.oswego.edu
> http://altair.cs.oswego.edu/mailman/listinfo/concurrency-interest
> 




More information about the Concurrency-interest mailing list