Hi Vyom, thanks for your feedback.
I'm not so sure about dropping "synchronized". In the new remove method of ClientVector we are iterating ourself. If this is not done under synchronization, there is risk to run into a ConcurrentModificationException. But under the assumption that all access to ClientVector comes from synchronized methods of KeepAliveCache, one could argue to drop all synchronized modifiers for ClientVector, though. Let's wait for other opinions :) Best regards Christoph From: net-dev [mailto:net-dev-boun...@openjdk.java.net] On Behalf Of vyom tewari Sent: Montag, 16. Oktober 2017 10:27 To: net-dev@openjdk.java.net Subject: Re: RFR(S): 8155590: Dubious collection management in sun.net.www.http.KeepAliveCache Hi Christoph, Thanks for doing this, i think you don't need to synchronize the "remove(HttpClient h)". This remove is get called from synchronize "remove (HttpClient h, Object obj)" and the underline data structure is which is java.util.Vector(ClientVector extends java.util.Stack) is also thread safe. What do you think ? Thanks, Vyom On Monday 16 October 2017 12:52 PM, Langer, Christoph wrote: Hi, Here is a proposal for a fix for bug 8155590. I already made this fix a while ago in our JDK clone and I'd like to contribute this. Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8155590 Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~clanger/webrevs/8155590.0/<http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Eclanger/webrevs/8155590.0/> Please review. Thanks Christoph
