[jbosscache-dev] New collections

[Manik Surtani]

On 8 Aug 2008, at 19:53, Jason T. Greene wrote:

> Jason T. Greene wrote:
>>>> Ok, today I went ahead and made these changed (commit 6536). So  
>>>> in case anything breaks, you know why :) I did run through the  
>>>> unit tests locally though, with no failures.
>>>
>>> I think it did break a few things - see the tests in  
>>> o.j.c.notifications.  :-)
>> Ok, I'll take a look at those. I remember them passing for me before.
>
> This is fixed now. I never saw the failure because the failing test  
> because I was executing the wrong test profile. I thought it  
> finished a little too early :)

Thanks!

>>> Also, looking at Immutables.immutableMapCopy(), isn't it  
>>> inefficient that you attempt to call clone() using reflection,  
>>> catch exceptions on failure, then try a copy constructor, catch  
>>> exception on failure, and finally attempt a new HashMap()?  Given  
>>> that this would most likely be used with either a FastCopyHashMap  
>>> or a HashMap, shouldn't we just check for instanceof of these  
>>> types and use the copy constructor directly, especially given that  
>>> there is hardly any performance diff between FCHM.clone() and it's  
>>> copy constructor?
>> Yeah I was originally planning on doing a instanceof check on known  
>> types, I just forgot to commit that update. It is using clone though.
>
> This is done now. It uses clone because the copy-ctor of almost all  
> the maps increases the size of the table.

True, but not for the FCHM.  Use the copy ctor in the case of the  
FCHM, instead of clone, I guess, and fall back to clone for other map  
types?

>>> Cloneable is such an arse interface - they really should have  
>>> exposed clone() as a public method there.  Solves a lot of  
>>> problems, no need for reflection, etc.
>> Yeah I agree it's a screwed up design.
>
> The other day I was thinking this would be so easy to fix in the  
> JDK. Add a new interface called ReallyCloneable that extends  
> Cloneable and requires the clone method. Then introduce a  
> System.clone(Object object) which is smart enough to try  
> ReallyCloneble first, and then barring that use reflection.

We should suggest that to the OpenJDK guys.  :-)  I'm guessing there  
is a public mail list for this?

Cheers
--
Manik Surtani
Lead, JBoss Cache
manik at jboss.org