removed unnecessary read lock in SpongeScheduler #3832
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
sunmisc
changed the title
|
Thanks! |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
synchronization block (read-only) is not needed for ConcurrentHashMap
to all this, the lock there has no meaning on reads, without a write lock (it is not there)
a very unpleasant bug can also turn out, this is when the uuid of the prng tasks will match, then the previous task will simply be removed from the map) this is a very rare case, but in theory it can happen
might be worth looking at the existing api - java.util.concurrent.ScheduledExecutorService