Hi Laurent, On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 8:13 PM, Laurent Bourgès <bourges.laur...@gmail.com> wrote: > > If the behavior changed in your patch, it sounds more conservative to > discard events (as before) if the present bug is still fixed. > It could be revisited later in another appropriate bug. > Is it a trivial change in your event filter ? I am looking forward trying > this alternative sllution. >
I believe that this decision -whether we dispatch, block o completely change the approach- has to be taken as part of this bug. We would need to further investigate, particularly on the SequencedEvent clients side. Discarding non-SequencedEvent events or holding them for the future is a trivial change. In fact, I tried it some days ago before proposing the latest version of the patch. What I noticed in your test at [1] was: events were injected at a high rate, the SequencedEvent.list list steadily grew, the EDT was very busy dispatching them -"blocked" like- and there was no room for dispatching other events keeping the GUI unresponsive -they were rejected by the waiting filter-. If I remember correctly, repainting after changing the counter was affected by this. Regards, Martin.- -- [1] - http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/awt-dev/2018-October/014429.html
