Java Docs says that, putIfAbsent
is equivalent to
if (!map.containsKey(key))
return map.put(key, value);
else
return map.get(key
Your code will throw an NPE if the key was not previously in the map.
Other than that, although this is a reasonable idea, it will not work in a "concurrent" environment. The reason the putIfAbsent()
method was added was so that the map could manage the atomicity of the operation using whatever underlying support it is using to make the operations thread-safe. In your implementation, 2 different callers could end of stepping on each other (the first replaces an expired value with a new one, and the second immediately replaces the first new one with a second new one).
So it doesnt update a key's value. is this correct?
That is correct. It will return the current value that was already in the Map.
would this be a better impl for adding and updating cache?
A couple things would make your implementation better.
1. You shouldn't use putIfAbsent to test if it exists, you should only use it when you want to ensure if one does not exist then putIfAbsent
. Instead you should use map.get
to test it's existence (or map.contains).
V local = _cache.get(key);
if (local.equals(value) && !local.IsExpired()) {
return;
}
2. Instead of put you will want to replace, this is because a race condition can occur where the if
can be evaluated as false by two or more threads in which one of the two (or more) threads will overwrite the other thread's puts.
What you can do instead is replace
When all is said and done it could look like this
public void AddToCache(T key, V value) {
for (;;) {
V local = _cache.get(key);
if(local == null){
local = _cache.putIfAbsent(key, value);
if(local == null)
return;
}
if (local.equals(value) && !local.IsExpired()) {
return;
}
if (_cache.replace(key, local, value))
return;
}
}