-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 37
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
Fall back properly if chosen factory class isn't working. #28
Fall back properly if chosen factory class isn't working. #28
Conversation
…sen one isn't working. Don't bother benchmarking the chosen factory class; it either works or it doesn't.
Note: this is the important parts of #26, without the PKCS11 change which is much less urgent. |
// unnecessary. Technically though, the specified CipherFactory may | ||
// malfunction. That is why FACTORY_CLASS_NAME is selected after it has | ||
// proven itself functional. | ||
boolean chosenFactoryClass = (factory.getClass().equals(Aes.factoryClass)); |
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.
Extra parens on purpose?
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.
Ah, no, I reorganized this from an if
statement.
|
||
if (chosenFactoryClass) | ||
{ | ||
if (minFactory != null) |
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.
I'm not sure I understand this well. If this loop iteration is for the user-configured factory class, return the fastest factory. If a previous non-user-configured factory was faster, we short-circuit and return it (the faster one)?
Should that return factory
instead of minFactory
?
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.
Well, elsewhere in the code I reorganize the list so the user-configured factory class is always first, so we avoid profiling factories we don't need to. But I agree that's fragile and confusing.
I've reorganized it now, is it clearer?
{ | ||
benchmark.run(cipher); | ||
} | ||
} | ||
|
||
long startTime = System.nanoTime(); | ||
for (int i = 0; i < NUM_BENCHMARKS; i++) | ||
for (int i = 0; i < numBenchmarks; i++) |
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.
Should line 329 use numBenchmarks
instead of NUM_BENCHMARKS
? I guess in practice it doesn't matter
{ | ||
for (Class<?> clazz : factoryClasses) | ||
Class<?>[] newFactoryClasses; | ||
if (add) |
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.
I think all of this is equivalent to factoryClasses = ArrayUtils.add(factoryClasses, Class.class, factoryClass);
(from jitsi-utils)
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.
Not quite - I want to put the new factory class first, whereas ArrayUtils.add
would seem to put it last.
Don't bother benchmarking the chosen factory class; it either works or it doesn't.
Also includes a few minor other cleanups.