Remove interfaces #25
Closed
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
eranmeir
reviewed
Feb 18, 2019
| assert writeLock.isHeldByCurrentThread(); | ||
| return value.slice(); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| public ByteBuffer getImmutableByteBuffer() { | ||
| public ByteBuffer getSlicedReadOnlyByteBuffer() { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| public ByteBuffer getSlicedReadOnlyByteBuffer() { | |
| public ByteBuffer getReadOnlyByteBuffer() { |
|
|
||
| @Override | ||
| public ByteBuffer getByteBuffer() { | ||
| public ByteBuffer getSlicedByteBuffer() { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| public ByteBuffer getSlicedByteBuffer() { | |
| public ByteBuffer getByteBuffer() { |
| @Override | ||
| public double getDouble() { | ||
| throw new NotImplementedException(); | ||
| public ByteOrder order() { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this in use anywhere? why not remove?
| @@ -632,11 +631,16 @@ OakRBuffer get(K key) { | |||
| if (lookUp == null || lookUp.handle == null) { | |||
| return null; | |||
| } | |||
| lookUp.handle.readLock(); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can we fit this logic in Handle (already introduced Handle::transform) and avoid exposing the lock completely?
| @@ -1050,35 +1048,32 @@ public T next() { | |||
| if (handle == null) { | |||
| return null; | |||
| } | |||
| handle.readLock.lock(); | |||
| handle.readLock(); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this may also be moved inside Handle
| public void uniTestOakRBuffer(){ | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| Function<ByteBuffer, String> deserialize = (byteBuffer) -> { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why not extract a proper method out of this?
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| @Test |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can use this:
Suggested change
| @Test | |
| @Test(expected = ConcurrentModificationException.class) |
and remove the try-catch-fail logic below
yonigottesman
force-pushed
the
rethink_oakBuffers
branch
from
e163c57
to
bae2337
Compare
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.
Remove redundant OakWBuffer