On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 14:19:08 GMT, Christopher Schnick <[email protected]> wrote:
>> It does say that, but I don't believe it to be necessary or effective. First >> of all, there should be no concurrent modifications. The rest of this class >> assumes this to be true, as `getOrderedChildren()` is iterated over in six >> other places in the same class, all without wrapping the getter in a >> try-catch block. Second, you've removed the only scenario where the getter >> is called with an objectively wrong index (-1), and actually throws an >> exception. > > At least this way it is minimally invasive. I think removing the catch block > would require more review and testing to be approved as that has the > potential of changing the behaviour in edge cases with concurrent > modifications, even if other methods don't check for it I agree with @crschnick here: the comment in question, `// minimal protection against concurrent update of the list.` is worrisome, and removing the try-catch block would turn it into a non-equivalent change that might need further review and testing since it might cause regression. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/2037#discussion_r2694816022
