On Tue, 3 Dec 2019 05:08:49 GMT, Ambarish Rapte <ara...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 10:19:04 GMT, Robert Lichtenberger <rlich...@openjdk.org> > wrote: > >> By using the collection itself as synchronization lock we achieve behaviour >> that matches java.util.Collections classes. >> >> I've create test cases that fail with the current way of synchronizing on a >> separate object. >> >> I've removed unused constructors. >> >> ---------------- >> >> Commits: >> - 7e80839f: 8232524: SynchronizedObservableMap cannot be be protected for >> copying/iterating >> - 8ecf3545: JDK-8232524 fixed. >> >> Changes: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jfx/pull/17/files >> Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.java.net/jfx/17/webrev.00 >> Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8232524 >> Stats: 120 lines in 2 files changed: 95 ins; 17 del; 8 mod >> Patch: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jfx/pull/17.diff >> Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/jfx pull/17/head:pull/17 > > The change looks good to me, added a comment for a small change in test. > > modules/javafx.base/src/test/java/test/javafx/collections/FXCollectionsTest.java > line 730: > >> 729: } catch (ConcurrentModificationException e) { >> 730: fail("ConcurrentModificationException should not be >> thrown"); >> 731: } > > The thread should be terminated here too, please add `thread.terminate();` > before `fail()` > > ---------------- > > Changes requested by arapte (Reviewer). You're right. I just pushed the fix. PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jfx/pull/17
