在淘宝内网有位同事提了一个很好的问题,大家能否帮忙解答下?
在CopyOnWriteArrayList类的set方法中有一段setArray(elements)代码,实际上这段代码并未对elements做任何改动,实现的volatile语意并不对CopyOnWriteArrayList实例产生任何影响,为什么还是要保留这行语句?见以下代码红体部分:
/** The array, accessed only via getArray/setArray. */ private volatile transient Object[] array; /** * Replaces the element at the specified position in this list with the * specified element. * * @throws IndexOutOfBoundsException {@inheritDoc} */ public E set(int index, E element) { final ReentrantLock lock = this.lock; lock.lock(); try { Object[] elements = getArray(); E oldValue = get(elements, index); if (oldValue != element) { int len = elements.length; Object[] newElements = Arrays.copyOf(elements, len); newElements[index] = element; setArray(newElements); } else { // Not quite a no-op; ensures volatile write semantics setArray(elements); } return oldValue; } finally { lock.unlock(); } } /** * Sets the array. */ final void setArray(Object[] a) { array = a; } /** * Gets the array. Non-private so as to also be accessible * from CopyOnWriteArraySet class. */ final Object[] getArray() { return array; }
这个问题在concurrency-interest邮件列表里也有人讨论:
http://cs.oswego.edu/pipermail/concurrency-interest/2010-February/006886.html
原创文章,作者:Maggie-Hunter,如若转载,请注明出处:https://blog.ytso.com/141156.html