Replace SparseArray with HashMap to hold JNI instances #857
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
💚 |
Plamen5kov
approved these changes
Oct 9, 2017
|
run ci |
|
💚 |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
With the current implementation the SparseArrays used to hold and manage the Java instances of objects created in JavaScript becomes/is considered 'corrupt' at some point, and would cause an application crash during garbage collection.
Replacing the SparseArray with HashMap of <Integer, Object> appears to prevent those crashes from happening, and although SparseArray is the recommended data structure when memory is a concern in an app - the use of HashMap does not seem to cause any negative effects or a memory overhead when comparing the same application before and after switching to HashMap.
Ideally we want to revert back to using SparseArray to store objects when the original issue in AOSP is addressed and pushed as an update.
Addresses #838