Re: [really patch] Re: HashMap putAll/putAllInternal bug

[Stuart Ballard]

Eric Blake wrote:
> Sun seems to be blessing the use of hasNext() here, by not documenting 
> that this should optimize to calling size().

Good point.

Since this patch still hasn't been applied, this message is another 
attempt to try to figure out if there's any consensus about it.

There have been lots of suggestions as to ways I could or should improve 
my code to not rely on this behavior (and in fact I have taken this 
approach: my code now works around the problem by not calling putAll() 
but manually looping over the elements and calling put() instead), but 
I'm not sure whether there have been any objections to applying the 
patch regardless, in order to match Sun's behavior and provide 
acceptable performance when size() is slow.

I'm aware that several people are of the "I'm not too keen on it and it 
shouldn't be necessary for properly written code" point of view, but I'm 
not aware of any that go so far as "This patch should not be applied". 
If you are such a person, please speak up.

If nobody speaks up, may I suggest that the consensus is "reluctantly 
apply it" - and in that case, could someone do so?

Thanks,
Stuart.

--
Stuart Ballard, Senior Web Developer
FASTNET - Web Solutions
(215) 283-2300, ext. 126
www.fast.net