On 2/10/2014 9:17 PM, Anthony Petrov wrote:
Thanks for the clarifications. Note that given that we re-create the EDT
if there are more events in the queue, I'm still unsure whether we
regress or not. I recall there was a patch submitted on this mailing
list a few years ago that made the EDT die unconditionally and never be
resurrected if it's requested to die. So I'm afraid the code that relies
on this behavior will stop working correctly after your fix because you
will re-create the EDT for all remaining events.
I can barely imagine such a code that kills EDT and expect it to have
died forever :) This is a violation of AWT contract, when event
dispatching is started as soon as a new event is posted. If applications
needs another behavior, it has to make sure no events are posted to AWT
event queue.
Oleg,
webrev .2 looks fine to me.
Thanks,
Artem
What tests did you run with your fix?
--
best regards,
Anthony
On 2/7/2014 8:18 PM, Oleg Pekhovskiy wrote:
Hi Anthony,
there are two points for choosing this solution:
1. If something makes EDT to die, there is a serious reason to do so.
It's a forced action.
So it should be done ASAP. Dying EDT usage for pumping followed events
looks strange because we expect him to die.
Moreover it could happen that events are posted quite frequently to keep
dying EDT alive for some period of time.
2. Synchronization object for posting events from different threads is
EventQueue.pushPopLock.
it is used in EventQueue. postEventPrivate(), EventQueue.getNextEvent()
and EventQueue. detachDispatchThread().
When dying EDT returns from EventDispatchThread.pumpEventsForFilter() to
EventDispatchThread.run() and then goes to
getEventQueue().detachDispatchThread(), EventQueue.pushPopLock is not
used, so any other thread could post events.
So if we don't call peekEvent() to recreate a new EDT, we'll just loose
these events as it currently happens.
So the main idea is to make EDT life cycle phases obvious.
Thanks,
Oleg
On 02/07/2014 06:48 PM, Anthony Petrov wrote:
Hi Oleg,
This code is very tricky. I like it that we process any events that
might be posted to the queue after the current EDT dies. However,
could you please clarify how initializing a new EDT is any different
from not letting the old one die? I.e. could we just not kill the old
EDT if we see there are more events in the queue? If not, what exact
difference does you solution bring?
It's not that I'm against your fix, it looks good actually. I'd just
like to understand the difference. Please elaborate.
Also, I recall we've fixed a number of bugs in this area. Are we sure
we don't regress after this fix?
--
best regards,
Anthony
On 2/7/2014 4:31 AM, Oleg Pekhovskiy wrote:
Hi all,
please review the next version of fix:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bagiras/8031694.2/
We with Artem Ananiev had off-line discussion and he offered let the
dying EDT to die
and process unhandled events by forcing another EDT start.
Thanks,
Oleg
On 01/28/2014 05:32 AM, Oleg Pekhovskiy wrote:
Hi all,
please review the fix
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bagiras/8031694.1/
for
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8031694
During forward-port of JDK-7189350 EDT.doDispatch was not taken into
account when calling EventQueue.detachDispatchThread().
As a result harmful optimization of this method occurred.
So when doDispatch became false, no more events in QventQueue were
handled before EDT shutdown.
I kept the optimization but added the check to
EDT.pumpEventsForFilter() that EventQueue is not empty to keep
pumping.
Thanks,
Oleg
