RFR 7118066: Warnings in java.util.concurrent package

[Rémi Forax]

On 12/06/2011 01:28 PM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
>
> On 12/ 6/11 01:12 AM, David Holmes wrote:
>> Chris, Doug,
>>
>> A few nits see below.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> David
>> -----
>>
>> As a matter of style can we ensure annotations are on separate lines. I
>> find this:
>>
>> @SuppressWarnings("unchecked") E x = (E) items[takeIndex];
>>
>> hard to read. (I hate seeing local variable annotations in the first
>> place - way too much clutter in my opinion.)
>
> local variable annotations/declaration now on new line.
>
>> Is the reason for constructs like this:
>>
>> HashEntry<K,V>[] tab = (HashEntry<K,V>[])new HashEntry<?,?>[cap];
>>
>> that we can't utilize diamond? Otherwise it would nicely reduce to:
>>
>> HashEntry<K,V>[] tab = new HashEntry<>[cap];
>
> I see follow up between you, Remi, and Maruizio, on this. Also note 
> that we need to be able to compile with 1.6, so no diamond anyway. I 
> assume this code is good as stands?
>
>> In ConcurrentSkipListMap:
>> - doesn't the class-level unchecked annotation make the local-variable
>> annotation redundant in clone()
>
> Right, but it is not wrong and may be useful if there is ever 
> refactoring of this code and the class level unchecked annotation is 
> removed. clone always needs to suppress unchecked. I'm ok either way.

Not true.
You only need a @SuppressWarnings if you use a return type which is 
different from Object
and doesn't inherits from a class that already have a clone that doesn't 
return an Object.
So here you need a @SuppressWarnings but it's not always the case.

By the way, there is no need to initialize the local variable clone to null.

[...]
>
> Thanks,
> -Chris.

cheers,
Rémi