[rfc] [icedtea-web] enable process-wide caching on windows

[Jiri Vanek]

ping?
On 9/6/18 4:01 PM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
> On 09/06/2018 02:17 PM, Alex Kashchenko wrote:
>> On 09/06/2018 11:13 AM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
>>> On 09/06/2018 12:30 AM, Alex Kashchenko wrote:
>>>> On 09/05/2018 02:42 PM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
>>>>> On 09/05/2018 12:01 AM, Alex Kashchenko wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This patch enables caching of downloaded JARs on windows. Caching is only process-wide - 
>>>>>> multiple instances of WebStart apps downloading JARs simultaneously may break caching logic. 
>>>>>> It still seems to be better than no caching at all:
>>>>> Thats deffinitley true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~akasko/itw/windows_cache.patch
>>>>>>
>>>>> The patch looks good, I'm just wondering, can it be done in more readable way?
>>>>
>>>> It adds as minimal changes as possible.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Eg having WindowsLockedFile extending LockedFile or simialrly?
>>>>
>>>> It can be done, but may be non-trivial (OS-wide named mutex looks like an ideal solution for 
>>>> that, but it cannot be accessed in pure java). I have no plans to work on this myself.
>>>
>>> No. No more then workround is necessary here, and no more work is deffinitly implied on you 
>>> yourself.
>>>
>>> My issue is, that now two completely unrleated things are mixed in the conditions.
>>>
>>> Myabe to have two bigger sections of
>>>
>>> isWindwos   then
>>> else
>>>
>>> would be more readable?  What do you think?
>>>
>>> The WindowsLockedFile would actually do the same, but should spare the likely appearing dupcode.
>>> As the LockedFile already is factory-created, then the WindowsLockedFile inner class of 
>>> WindowsLocked  would be really small change.
>>>
>>>
>>> How do you feel abbout attached approach? ***!!!not tested!!!***
>>
>> I can suggest to test this first, because caching logic there is quite convoluted.
>>
>> Minimal patch was tested some months ago before its inclusion with MSI, I think it is better to 
>> push it instead.
> 
> Hmm:(( I'm really unhappy with it.
> It can possibly go to 1.7, but for head I would like more readable approach which is not mixing 
> conditions.
> The patch I posted do not touch linux code at all, and windows changes were 1:1 derived from your 
> patch. But I could read the conditions wrongly.  Do you mind to try review it theoretically and in 
> best to test it for windows?
> 
> Sorry for making troubles, but you yourself must admit that the conditions are unrelated.
>     J.
>>
>>
> 
> 


-- 
Jiri Vanek
Senior QE engineer, OpenJDK QE lead, Mgr.
Red Hat Czech
jvanek at redhat.com    M: +420775390109