Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

2.x: full JDK 6 compatible backport + including bugfixes up to today #3668

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 5, 2016

Conversation

akarnokd
Copy link
Member

@akarnokd akarnokd commented Feb 4, 2016

Due to the issue with AtomicXFieldUpdaters on certain Android devices, I had to manually replace all of them with regular AtomicX classes.

@JakeWharton
Copy link
Contributor

This is basically unreviewable, so I vote that it is just merged. People can go through the code base passively and bring up any issues/questions/etc. as they're discovered.

@akarnokd
Copy link
Member Author

akarnokd commented Feb 4, 2016

It's not possible incrementally anyway, i.e., by using our own Function, it affects all operators that take Function.

@zsxwing
Copy link
Member

zsxwing commented Feb 4, 2016

👍 Agree

}

public T get() {
return value;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This method throws exception if value is null in JDK 8'th impl, is this intended, @akarnokd?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

By us, it's of that throws before even creating the optional.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Code can (through abstraction) end up doing Optional.empty().get() which leaks a null reference into the system though.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yup, exactly, deserves a throw in my opinion, to prevent leaking that null into user's code.

Also
1454550686518

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Agree, of and get need to check for null.

@stevegury
Copy link
Member

I'm ok for merging it as is.
Let's review it incrementally.
👍

@ZacSweers
Copy link
Contributor

👍 for all of this

akarnokd added a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 5, 2016
2.x: full JDK 6 compatible backport + including bugfixes up to today
@akarnokd akarnokd merged commit 08ebba7 into ReactiveX:2.x Feb 5, 2016
@akarnokd
Copy link
Member Author

akarnokd commented Feb 5, 2016

Merged. Happy reviewing!

@akarnokd akarnokd deleted the Java6Backport branch February 5, 2016 07:53
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants