Replace synchronization by Lock in FutureImpl #2912
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
It's ok for now, but I'd definitely revisit the design of Vavr's Future. That locking in constructor feels excessive - I believe that immutable objects can be actually mutable inside as long as this this doesn't leak. It also feels that the current implementation tries to be overly smart by inducing happens-before using synchronized instead of plain volatile |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I replaced synchronized blocks with Lock for the sake of Virtual Threads support. More details: https://docs.oracle.com/en/java/javase/21/core/virtual-threads.html#GUID-04C03FFC-066D-4857-85B9-E5A27A875AF9
Similar to #2845