frogmc/FrogLoader
6
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Separate plugin types #10

Merged
owlsys merged 14 commits from ecorous/plugin-types into main 2024-06-16 17:13:54 -04:00
Conversation 0 Commits 14 Files changed 36 +4 -5
1 changed files with 4 additions and 5 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files
Showing only changes of commit 39ba054fcb - Show all commits

9
src/main/java/dev/frogmc/frogloader/impl/PluginLoader.java
View file

@ -2,7 +2,6 @@ package dev.frogmc.frogloader.impl;
import java.nio.file.Path;
import java.util.*;
import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger;
import dev.frogmc.frogloader.api.FrogLoader;
import dev.frogmc.frogloader.api.mod.ModProperties;
@ -25,8 +24,8 @@ public class PluginLoader {
List<ModProvider> providers = new ArrayList<>(ServiceLoader.load(ModProvider.class).stream().map(ServiceLoader.Provider::get).toList()); // we need mutability & random access
Map<String, Collection<ModProperties>> properties = new HashMap<>();
AtomicInteger size = new AtomicInteger(providers.size()); // use a separate size variable to not have to iterate over the list over and over again
for (int i = 0; i < size.get(); i++) {
int[] size = new int[providers.size()]; // use a separate size variable to not have to iterate over the list over and over again
for (int i = 0; i < size[0]; i++) {
Ecorous marked this conversation as resolved Outdated
kode commented 2024-06-16 15:28:00 -04:00
Outdated
Review
Copy link

wouldn't int[] size = new int[] { providers.size() } be better as there's no need for thread safety?

wouldn't `int[] size = new int[] { providers.size() }` be better as there's no need for thread safety?
Ecorous commented 2024-06-16 15:52:29 -04:00
Outdated
Review
Copy link

I believe this works better - but I wouldn't know as I didn't write it

I believe this works better - but I wouldn't know as I didn't write it
Ecorous commented 2024-06-16 16:05:08 -04:00
Outdated
Review
Copy link

The only difference here would be a insignificantly smaller memory footprint - this isn't an issue

The only difference here would be a insignificantly smaller memory footprint - this isn't an issue
kode commented 2024-06-16 16:43:04 -04:00
Outdated
Review
Copy link

It's not about performance, i think it's bad practice to use AtomicInteger when you don't need it

It's not about performance, i think it's bad practice to use AtomicInteger when you don't need it
Ecorous commented 2024-06-16 16:46:17 -04:00
Outdated
Review
Copy link

Resolved in 39ba054fcb

Resolved in 39ba054fcbb139134081d9bf776e035c4d893182
ModProvider plugin = providers.get(i); // use random access to work around concurrent access (through modifications during iteration)
LOGGER.debug("Found mod provider: {}", plugin.getClass().getName());
if (!plugin.isApplicable()) {
@ -46,7 +45,7 @@ public class PluginLoader {
LOGGER.debug("Loaded {} mod(s) from provider: {}", loadedMods.size(), plugin.id());
loadedMods.forEach(p -> p.extensions().runIfPresent(BuiltinExtensions.MOD_PROVIDER, ModProvider.class, provider -> {
providers.add(provider);
size.getAndIncrement();
size[0]++;
}));
} catch (Throwable e) {
LOGGER.error("Error during plugin initialisation: ", e);
@ -55,7 +54,7 @@ public class PluginLoader {
Collection<ModProperties> flattened = properties.values().stream().flatMap(Collection::stream).toList();
try {
Collection<ModProperties> solved = new ModDependencyResolver(flattened).solve();
Collection<ModProperties> solved = new ModDependencyResolver(flattened).solve();
properties.forEach((s, c) -> c.retainAll(solved));
properties.forEach((s, c) -> {
Map<String, ModProperties> map = mods.computeIfAbsent(s, u -> new HashMap<>());