Review of "Collections.synchronizedXXX" to ensure we aren't missing locks #511
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
…SyncRoot of the collection to match Lucene
…chronization to ensure the cache mutations synchronize with GetSizeInBytes()
… for MockLockFactory.LocksCreated dictionary (as was done in Lucene)
|
Superseded by #525. |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Reviewed all occurrences of
Collections.synchronizedSet(),Collections.synchronizedMap(), andCollections.synchronizedList()calls in Lucene and fixed issues with missing locks and non-concurrent collections where concurrency is required.