On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 14:50:21 GMT, Robert Lichtenberger <rlich...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> 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. Note that this is still pending a second review from @arapte PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jfx/pull/17
