Hi Peter,
I like the LHM (personal favorite data structure) approach with the
dual-purpose key.
Stanimir
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Peter Levart <peter.lev...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 09/12/2014 12:45 PM, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
>
>> However the listeners are to be invoked in the same order they have been
>>> added.
>>>
>>
>> I am still unconvinced this is worth the additional
>> complexity it would bring to the implementation.
>> The deprecated methods were using HashMap to store listeners,
>> and therefore the order in which listeners were invoked was also
>> undefined. Nobody has ever complained.
>>
>
> What about using a synchronized LinkedHashMap<ListenerAction,
> ListenerAction>() with the following double-purpose inner class:
>
> private static final class ListenerAction implements
> PrivilegedAction<Void> {
> private final Runnable listener;
> private final AccessControlContext acc;
>
> ListenerAction(Runnable listener, AccessControlContext acc) {
> this.listener = listener;
> this.acc = acc;
> }
>
> void invoke() {
> if (acc == null) {
> run();
> } else {
> AccessController.doPrivileged(this, acc);
> }
> }
>
> // not to be run() directly - use invoke() instead
> @Override
> public Void run() {
> listener.run();
> return null;
> }
>
> @Override
> public int hashCode() {
> return System.identityHashCode(listener);
> }
>
> @Override
> public boolean equals(Object obj) {
> return (obj instanceof ListenerAction) &&
> ((ListenerAction) obj).listener == listener;
> }
> }
>
>
>
>> (http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8u/jdk8u-dev/jdk/file/
>> 3ae82f0c6b31/src/share/classes/java/util/logging/LogManager.java#l1431)
>>
>>
>> I'd rather run the listeners in try/catch and throw the 1st exception at
>>> the end.
>>> Defining the 1st however requires obeying the order the listeners have
>>> been added.
>>> As far as I see there is no documentation how the listeners are supposed
>>> to behave or be invoked.
>>>
>>
>> We could do that - invoke all listeners and rethrow the exception
>> caught by the first listener that failed (on the basis that if any other
>> listener subsequently fails it may be because the previous listener
>> has left the system in an inconsistent state, and that therefore
>> the first exception caught has 'more value' than the others).
>>
>> I am not completely convinced this is a better behavior than
>> simply stopping invoking listeners at the first exception.
>> I wonder if there would be a good wording to say that listeners
>> are not supposed to throw, but that if they do, the exceptions
>> will be propagated...
>>
>
> You're probably right. But in case you changed your mind, you could
> rethrow the 1st exception thrown, with possible further exceptions added to
> it a suppressed exceptions...
>
> Regards, Peter
>
>
>> best regards,
>>
>> -- daniel
>>
>
>
