On Mon, 2006-02-06 at 12:56 +, Roman Kennke wrote:
2006-02-06 Roman Kennke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* javax/swing/event/SwingPropertyChangeSupport.java
(listeners): Removed field.
(propertyListeners): Removed field.
(source): Removed field.
Hi there again,
Am Freitag, den 03.02.2006, 14:36 +0100 schrieb Roman Kennke:
Hi Mark,
Am Freitag, den 03.02.2006, 12:19 +0100 schrieb Mark Wielaard:
Hi,
This should get rid of the last regression that builder is complaining
about (technically it isn't a regression, the test got
Hi there,
It seems that Sun has removed everything except the constructor from
javax.swing.event.SwingPropertyChangeSupport. See
http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/guide/swing/1.5/index.html#swingMisc
for details.
2006-02-06 Roman Kennke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
Hi Roman,
On Mon, 2006-02-06 at 12:09 +0100, Roman Kennke wrote:
I guess the
java.beans.PropertyChangeSupport is now made more efficient (and not
thread safe) so that the SwingPropertyChangeSupport is not needed
anymore. Should we follow this?
Sure. It will clean up some of our code
Hi Mark again,
But maybe it can be made a little more efficient by not using
the old Vector and Hashtable classes all the time which seem to double
the synchronization in that class, but use an List and Map for that and
only synchronize on those when really needed.
Thinking about it, I am
Hi Mark,
Am Montag, den 06.02.2006, 14:21 +0100 schrieb Mark Wielaard:
Hi Roman,
On Mon, 2006-02-06 at 12:09 +0100, Roman Kennke wrote:
I guess the
java.beans.PropertyChangeSupport is now made more efficient (and not
thread safe) so that the SwingPropertyChangeSupport is not needed
Hi Roman,
On Mon, 2006-02-06 at 14:54 +0100, Roman Kennke wrote:
But maybe it can be made a little more efficient by not using
the old Vector and Hashtable classes all the time which seem to double
the synchronization in that class, but use an List and Map for that and
only synchronize on
Hi,
This should get rid of the last regression that builder is complaining
about (technically it isn't a regression, the test got changed to not
expect a NullPointerException). It simply changes the Hashtable that
doesn't allow null keys to a HashMap. The class wasn't thread-safe in
the first
Hi Mark,
Am Freitag, den 03.02.2006, 12:19 +0100 schrieb Mark Wielaard:
Hi,
This should get rid of the last regression that builder is complaining
about (technically it isn't a regression, the test got changed to not
expect a NullPointerException). It simply changes the Hashtable that
