Review Request -- 5045147 : When TreeMap is empty explicitly check for null keys in put() [updated]

[Steve Poole]

On 15/03/11 17:05, Jason Mehrens wrote:
> Hi Steve,
>
> I was one of the people that provided feedback on Mike's patch.  In my 
> case, it was a mishap of reply to sender vs. reply to all.  I don't 
> have the original email but, the result are visible in the test case 
> that Mike wrote.  My main concern with the old patch that if you use a 
> raw type (think legacy code) you can poison a TreeMap/TreeSet with 
> non-null object that cannot be compared.  I remembered reviewing that 
> code back in JSR166 maintenance review.  I can't take credit for it 
> since the review section of the bug report does a great job of 
> explaining the evolution of the correct patch. 
> http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=5045147
>
> Jason
Jason and Mike -  thank you for posting this information.   I appreciate 
the quick responses.
>
> > Subject: Re: Review Request -- 5045147 : When TreeMap is empty 
> explicitly check for null keys in put() [updated]
> > From: mike.duigou at oracle.com
> > Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 09:34:00 -0700
> > To: spoole at linux.vnet.ibm.com
> > CC: core-libs-dev at openjdk.java.net
> >
> >
> > On Mar 15 2011, at 02:36 , Steve Poole wrote:
> >
> > > On 14/03/11 21:02, Mike Duigou wrote:
> > >> I've gotten feedback regarding this issue and I've updated the 
> webrev to use the commented out compare(key, key) test rather than the 
> previously committed solution. I hadn't looked at the commented out 
> code too carefully and had assumed it was pseudo-code rather than an 
> actual solution. It's an improvement over the original solution and 
> reads, to me and apparently others, a lot simpler.
> > >>
> > > Hi - can you post the feedback to the mailing list?
> >
> > Hi Steve;
> >
> > Sorry, I can't repost them. I'd have preferred that the feedback 
> went to the list but for whatever reasons the two respondents chose to 
> send the feedback privately and I won't repost their private emails. 
> (They are certainly welcome to do so if they feel it matters). Perhaps 
> it was just a case of "Reply to Sender" vs "Reply to All". I don't 
> know. To summarize the messages though, "Just use the commented out 
> code for 504517. It's better than the old patch."
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mduigou/5045147/1/webrev/
> > >>
> > >> Also now included is a jtreg unit test.
> > >>
> > >> Mike
> > >
> >