On Fri, 2 Nov 2001 23:09, Ken Geis wrote:
> I'm pretty sure what I propose below is how it should be. What I can't
> figure out is why this was outstanding. Did it truly not happen to
> anyone? I've tested the patch and it resolves the problem I was having.
I applied it but I am not sure why you are getting the exception. In theory
the priority queue should never be empty at this point because you have just
inserted a value into it.
Can you give a small test case that would cause the exception to be thrown ?
> 83,86c83,90
> < if( entry == m_priorityQueue.peek() )
> < {
> < synchronized( m_monitor ) { m_monitor.notify(); }
> < }
> ---
>
> > try
> > {
> > if( entry == m_priorityQueue.peek() )
> > {
> > synchronized( m_monitor ) { m_monitor.notify(); }
> > }
> > }
> > catch( final NoSuchElementException nse ) {}
--
Cheers,
Pete
---------------------------------------------
We shall not cease from exploration, and the
end of all our exploring will be to arrive
where we started and know the place for the
first time -- T.S. Eliot
---------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
