Skip to content

Conversation

@MarkCiliaVincenti
Copy link

This PR replaces the locking mechanism with the battle-tested AsyncKeyedLock library (disclaimer: I am the author of this library).

The locking mechanism here reduces allocations (due to pooling of objects) and avoids the existing double-check of the dictionary (which is technically a race condition because if the reference matches inside the finally, there is no guarantee that by the time it's removed that another thread hasn't obtained the lock).

@github-actions
Copy link

Hi there @MarkCiliaVincenti, thank you for this contribution! 👍

While we wait for one of the Core Collaborators team to have a look at your work, we wanted to let you know about that we have a checklist for some of the things we will consider during review:

  • It's clear what problem this is solving, there's a connected issue or a description of what the changes do and how to test them
  • The automated tests all pass (see "Checks" tab on this PR)
  • The level of security for this contribution is the same or improved
  • The level of performance for this contribution is the same or improved
  • Avoids creating breaking changes; note that behavioral changes might also be perceived as breaking
  • If this is a new feature, Umbraco HQ provided guidance on the implementation beforehand
  • 💡 The contribution looks original and the contributor is presumably allowed to share it

Don't worry if you got something wrong. We like to think of a pull request as the start of a conversation, we're happy to provide guidance on improving your contribution.

If you realize that you might want to make some changes then you can do that by adding new commits to the branch you created for this work and pushing new commits. They should then automatically show up as updates to this pull request.

Thanks, from your friendly Umbraco GitHub bot 🤖 🙂

@Zeegaan
Copy link
Member

Zeegaan commented Nov 19, 2025

Hello there, first of all, thank you for the effort on creating this 💪
Sadly, the team sentiment is that we do not want to add another dependency for this, as we don't think it is worth it in this case.
I will go ahead and close this, once again thank you for taking the time here even though we aren't merging this 🙏

@Zeegaan Zeegaan closed this Nov 19, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants