Hi,
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Michael Dürig wrote:
> Sounds good. I try to come up with something and change the expectation for
> the RepositoryTest.observationDispose test case.
OK, great!
BR,
Jukka Zitting
On 14.6.13 10:45, Jukka Zitting wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Michael Dürig wrote:
AFAIU to comply with the removeEventListener contract we either have to
interrupt the observation thread (like my implementation did) or live with
the deadlock caused by client handlers blocking
Hi,
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Michael Dürig wrote:
> AFAIU to comply with the removeEventListener contract we either have to
> interrupt the observation thread (like my implementation did) or live with
> the deadlock caused by client handlers blocking on events (like you
> experienced wit
AFAIU to comply with the removeEventListener contract we either have to
interrupt the observation thread (like my implementation did) or live
with the deadlock caused by client handlers blocking on events (like you
experienced with RepositoryTest.observationDispose).
Michael
On 14.6.13 10
Hi,
Below code breaks stop()'s contract, which states that no further events
will be delivered after calling stop. It will be that way probably most
of the time but not necessarily always.
Changing stop()'s contract escalates to
ObservationManagerImpl.removeEventListener, which explicitly s
