Code Review Request for Bug #4802647

[Brandon Passanisi]

Yes, my intent was "extends AbstractSet<E>" instead of "extends 
NewAbstractCollection<E>".  I have reflected this in the updated webrev 
below.  Here's the information:

    Webrev URL: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bpassani/4802647/2/webrev/
    Bug URL: http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=4802647

1. In MOAT.java, I changed NewAbstractSet to extend AbstractSet<E>.

2. The changes in 1) resulted in finding out that AbstractSet has the 
same bug behavior with removeAll(null). 
AbstractSet.removeAll(Collection<?> c) was updated accordingly.

3. I filed bug 7123424 to account for the same bug behavior found in 
CopyOnWriteArrayList and CopyOnWriteArraySet.

4. It was advised that I skip the failing behavior of 
CopyOnWriteArrayList and CopyOnWriteArraySet for 
removeAll(null)/retainAll(null) in MOAT.java and provide a comment about 
how the skip needs to be removed once bug 7123424 is fixed.  This is the 
reason for the instanceof checks that were recently added and the added 
comments.

Thanks.

On 12/21/2011 7:52 AM, Jason Mehrens wrote:
> > Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 10:12:02 +1000
> > From: david.holmes at oracle.com
> > To: brandon.passanisi at oracle.com
> > Subject: Re: Code Review Request for Bug #4802647
> > CC: core-libs-dev at openjdk.java.net
> >
> > Brandon,
> >
> > I don't see the purpose of NewAbstractSet. It is identical to
> > NewAbstractCollection.
>
> I would assume the intent was "extends AbstractSet<E>" instead 
> of "extends NewAbstractCollection<E>".
>
> Jason

-- 
Oracle <http://www.oracle.com>
Brandon Passanisi | Principle Member of Technical Staff

Green Oracle <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Oracle is committed to 
developing practices and products that help protect the environment