On Thu, 3 Nov 2022 01:56:05 GMT, Stuart Marks <sma...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/LinkedHashMap.java line 384:
>>
>>> 382: return this.put(k, v);
>>> 383: } finally {
>>> 384: putMode = PUT_NORM;
>>
>> @stuart-marks Would it be an alternative to have an `internalPut(mode, k,
>> v)` so there is no need to have an internal variable which needs to be
>> read/written multiple time per operation? 🤔
>
> Yeah, the coupling here is rather distasteful. (Otherwise known as a quick
> and dirty hack.) Unfortunately the coupling between HashMap and LinkedHashMap
> is pretty special-purposed for exactly the intended usage modes
> (insertion-order and access-order). It could be improved, but it would
> probably require some refactoring in HashMap, which I didn't want to do right
> now, in order to keep the sequenced stuff separate.
Another issue are custom `LinkedHashMap` subclasses which override `put(…)` to
do input validation, which would get bypassed by `internalPut(…)`. A better
solution to a private field would be to use [JEP 429: Scoped values].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That said, using `internalPut(…)` for the case where `getClass() ==
LinkedHashMap.class` would probably be fine.
[JEP 429: Scoped values]: https://openjdk.org/jeps/429
-------------
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/7387#discussion_r1012574601
