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:
[code lang=”java”]
/** 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;
}
[/code]
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