[concurrency-interest] ConcurrentReferenceMap enhancement to 166 - Feedback Requested
Thomas.Hawtin at Sun.COM
Thu Apr 17 14:28:15 EDT 2008
Bob Lee wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 7:32 AM, Jason T. Greene
> <jason.greene at redhat.com <mailto:jason.greene at redhat.com>> wrote:
> - Can't do standard equality with weak/soft
> Standard equality doesn't make sense for weak/soft. Weak/soft references
> are fundamentally identity based.
Weak certainly. But for soft?
> I agree that it should not delegate, but I doubt we need to copy CHM
> 100%, especially if we're in the same package.
If it was exposed through an interface and static creation methods (plus
a serial proxy), the implementation strategy could be hidden.
Optimisation tradeoffs could then be switched later. OTOH, that is
different from existing collections.
> I've talked to Doug, in that I've sent him a couple ReferenceMap
> revisions for review over the past three years. His latest feedback was
> that he wanted to wait for the new key/value reference type he's been
> working on, so we've been holding off for that.
If that works out, it makes many things easier.
There's an interesting point from Cliff Click:
If you "touch" a WeakReference you potentially prevent it from being
cleared briefly. So there is some danger of ending up with an all
singing/dancing map and ending up placing a unique WeakReference in the
key so we never actually have to call get on it.
More information about the Concurrency-interest