FIx (xml-) config classes for thread-safe issues

[304NotModified]

Replacing foreach with for, for thread-safe usage

For forces uses to use lists.

(also for is most of the time more performant)

fixes #1153

[codecov-io]

Current coverage is 73.78%

Merging #1157 into master will increase coverage by +0.20% as of 1b2622a

@@            master   #1157   diff @@
======================================
  Files          265     265       
  Stmts        15080   15138    +58
  Branches      1656    1660     +4
  Methods          0       0       
======================================
+ Hit          11097   11170    +73
+ Partial        419     418     -1
+ Missed        3564    3550    -14

Review entire Coverage Diff as of 1b2622a

---

Uncovered Suggestions

1. +0.08% via ...c/NLog/LogFactory.cs#181...192
2. +0.08% via ...gingConfiguration.cs#281...291
3. +0.08% via ...gingConfiguration.cs#244...254
4. See 7 more...

Powered by Codecov. Updated on successful CI builds.

[s-sreenath]

Wouldn't it be better if you expose a lock variable and use the same during modification of the list?

[304NotModified]

Good question. Well locks are more expensive then creating objects. (CPU, lock is some kind of thread sleep) And when the collection is changed while processing, it's isn't wrong to continue progressing the old collection.

Or do you see it otherwise?

[s-sreenath]

@304NotModified I don't have any other thoughts on the locking. But I do have few questions and comments on the changes.

[s-sreenath]

Can you create method similar to GetInstallableItems

[304NotModified]

Thanks. I needed a parameters for the reverse() in this case (performance)

[304NotModified]

Thanks for the review @page-not-found .

I applied most of your suggestions, see code comment . Please double check. If you think it's OK, just merge it :)

[s-sreenath]

Sure. I just now added some more comments. Can you also check to see there
is no merge conflicts?
On Jan 15, 2016 14:01, "Julian Verdurmen" notifications@github.com wrote:

Thanks for the review @page-not-found https://github.com/Page-Not-Found
.

I applied most of your suggestions, see code comment . Please double
check. If you think it's OK, just merge it :)

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#1157 (comment).

[s-sreenath]

I don't see the Merge pull request button. it is disabled.

[304NotModified]

(Travis has some issues, e.g. timeouts when restoring packages, in multiple branches seen)

[304NotModified]

@page-not-found if you check this again, please do.

I reverted (and squashed) some previous commutes. I use now every time a variable with .ToList() - which makes a new list always, see reference source: http://referencesource.microsoft.com/#System.Core/System/Linq/Enumerable.cs,e276d6892241255b

[304NotModified]

@page-not-found, you're now a gladiator? ;)

[s-sreenath]

I am good with all of the code now. But I still prefer to use the for construct just because it does not create a enumerator in run time.

One small suggestion, when you have just one line with in a if or for block. Don't need {}

[bhaeussermann]

One small suggestion, when you have just one line with in a if or for block. Don't need {}

That's a matter of style ;). I personally prefer omitting {} when not needed (to keep the code more concise), but others like to include them always. I guess it makes single-line code blocks more visually explicit and consistent with other blocks.

[304NotModified]

if ((err = SSLHashSHA1.update(&hashCtx, &serverRandom)) != 0)
    goto fail;
if ((err = SSLHashSHA1.update(&hashCtx, &signedParams)) != 0)
    goto fail;
    goto fail;  
if ((err = SSLHashSHA1.final(&hashCtx, &hashOut)) != 0)
    goto fail;

err = sslRawVerify(...);

The enormous SSL fail of Apple (2014)

[s-sreenath]

I agree will you both. We are good to merge.

[304NotModified]

Thanks for checking @page-not-found!