svn commit: r1528475 - /jackrabbit/oak/trunk/oak-core/src/main/java/org/apache/jackrabbit/oak/plugins/name/ReadOnlyNamespaceRegistry.java

[th...@apache.org]

Author: thomasm
Date: Wed Oct  2 13:58:06 2013
New Revision: 1528475

URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1528475
Log:
OAK-125 : Improved namespace registry - slightly faster getURIs call by not sorting the list

Modified:
    jackrabbit/oak/trunk/oak-core/src/main/java/org/apache/jackrabbit/oak/plugins/name/ReadOnlyNamespaceRegistry.java

Modified: jackrabbit/oak/trunk/oak-core/src/main/java/org/apache/jackrabbit/oak/plugins/name/ReadOnlyNamespaceRegistry.java
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/jackrabbit/oak/trunk/oak-core/src/main/java/org/apache/jackrabbit/oak/plugins/name/ReadOnlyNamespaceRegistry.java?rev=1528475&r1=1528474&r2=1528475&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- jackrabbit/oak/trunk/oak-core/src/main/java/org/apache/jackrabbit/oak/plugins/name/ReadOnlyNamespaceRegistry.java (original)
+++ jackrabbit/oak/trunk/oak-core/src/main/java/org/apache/jackrabbit/oak/plugins/name/ReadOnlyNamespaceRegistry.java Wed Oct  2 13:58:06 2013
@@ -81,7 +81,6 @@ public abstract class ReadOnlyNamespaceR
             Tree root = getReadTree();
             Map<String, String> map = Namespaces.getNamespaceMap(root);
             String[] uris = map.values().toArray(new String[map.size()]);
-            Arrays.sort(uris);
             return uris;
         } catch (RuntimeException e) {
             throw new RepositoryException(

Re: svn commit: r1528475 - /jackrabbit/oak/trunk/oak-core/src/main/java/org/apache/jackrabbit/oak/plugins/name/ReadOnlyNamespaceRegistry.java

[Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>]

Hi,

On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 9:58 AM,  <th...@apache.org> wrote:
> OAK-125 : Improved namespace registry - slightly faster getURIs call by not sorting the list

This can cause subtle issues for clients (including IIRC some of our
test cases) that assume a stable ordering of the return value. Clients
generally shouldn't rely on something like that, but it's an easy
thing to miss and a common source of problems, so I'd rather keep the
explicit ordering especially as I don't think its the key performance
bottleneck here.

BR,

Jukka Zitting