-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 45
Fix optional texture map lookup warnings #512
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
Open
belgianguy
wants to merge
3
commits into
tonihele:master
Choose a base branch
from
belgianguy:fix/optional-texture-map-warnings
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+17
−11
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This logic I also don't quite get?
found = (assetInfo != null);, that is clear, but whyWhy is the added complexity there? I'm not saying it is wrong, I just don't get it. We already know whether the texture was found or not because we just checked it, then for some reason we see if it was already resolved earlier (concurrency) and use that value instead. Shouldn't the new value actually be the dominant one? Maybe somebody just added it, or removed it. Either way using simply PUT as opposed to putIfAbsent we kinda have the latest value? Of course this event is highly unlikely and if we worry about it too much, double checked locking is always a trusted friend and in many cases way better than the chaos brought by simply using synchronized collections.
Sometimes the algorithm is way heavier than the cost of just locking, so you end up loosing in the throughput in the end. But this here I am not proposing the locking, just rambling :D
So just a question why? For learning purposes
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Also why not cache the Texture instead of a bool
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hi @Trass3r ,
The AssetManager already caches loaded textures. This cache is mainly for remembering missing optional maps, which the asset cache cannot represent.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@tonihele: Regarding your question:
The putIfAbsent was intended to ensure that concurrent callers use one consistent cached result, but I agree that the implementation added unnecessary complexity. I’ve replaced the whole sequence with computeIfAbsent(), which expresses the intent more directly and performs the lookup once per texture name.
Assets aren’t expected to be added or removed at runtime. If that becomes supported, this cache would need explicit invalidation—using put() alone wouldn’t reliably represent the latest state during concurrent lookups either.