JDK 8 code review request for initial unsigned integer

[Ulf Zibis]

Am 18.01.2012 22:20, schrieb Roger Riggs:
> On 01/18/2012 03:09 PM, Joe Darcy wrote:
>>
>>> 1. In the new parsing methods, could the String arguments be changed to the more general
>>> java.lang.CharSequence? For many parsing applications, it could be more convenient
>>> to pass a CharSequence than to create a new String.
>>
>>
>> I don't think that would be very helpful in this case.  If the methods were changed to take a 
>> CharSequence, the first action I'd write in the method would be to call toString on the argument; 
>> this is necessary to guard against the class of time-of-check-versus-time-of-use problems because 
>> the CharSequence objects can be mutable.
>
> Though the existing methods do operate on immutable inputs,  there is no
> expectation of synchronization provided by the parsing methods of Integer, etc.
>
> Making the change would not break any existing code because it continues to pass
> immutable inputs.
>
> New code that calls the methods using CharSequences, in full knowledge of the
> mutability of CharSequences, would manage or avoid the concurrency issues,
> most likely by keeping the computation to a single thread or otherwise synchronizing
> changes to the object that implement CharSequence.
>
> Since Integer makes no assurances about being multi-thread safe it can operate
> under those assumptions and does not need to make copies of the arguments.
> In any case, the copy operation itself could run afoul of concurrency faults, and it
> doesn't matter where the copy occurs, inside or outside of the Integer methods.
>
> Please consider the necessity of  extra steps by the developer (to produce strings)
> and the potential savings in the load on the heap by not creating copies of strings.
>
> Roger

+1

-Ulf