Changeset: 46338d02
Author:Robert Lichtenberger
Committer: Kevin Rushforth
Date: 2019-12-05 12:51:11 +
URL: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jfx/commit/46338d02
8232524: SynchronizedObservableMap cannot be be protected for copying/iterating
Reviewed-by: arapte, kcr
!
On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 15:29:50 GMT, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 14:50:21 GMT, Robert Lichtenberger
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 3 Dec 2019 05:08:49 GMT, Ambarish Rapte wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 10:19:04 GMT, Robert Lichtenberger
>>> wrote:
>>>
By using the collection
On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 14:50:19 GMT, Robert Lichtenberger
wrote:
> The pull request has been updated with additional changes.
>
>
>
> Added commits:
> - 7c5cf198: 8232524: Test cleanup: terminate background thread upon failure.
>
> Changes:
> - all:
On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 14:50:19 GMT, Robert Lichtenberger
wrote:
> The pull request has been updated with additional changes.
>
>
>
> Added commits:
> - 7c5cf198: 8232524: Test cleanup: terminate background thread upon failure.
>
> Changes:
> - all:
On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 14:50:21 GMT, Robert Lichtenberger
wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Dec 2019 05:08:49 GMT, Ambarish Rapte wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 10:19:04 GMT, Robert Lichtenberger
>> wrote:
>>
>>> By using the collection itself as synchronization lock we achieve behaviour
>>> that matches
On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 14:50:19 GMT, Robert Lichtenberger
wrote:
> The pull request has been updated with additional changes.
>
>
>
> Added commits:
> - 7c5cf198: 8232524: Test cleanup: terminate background thread upon failure.
>
> Changes:
> - all:
The pull request has been updated with additional changes.
Added commits:
- 7c5cf198: 8232524: Test cleanup: terminate background thread upon failure.
Changes:
- all: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jfx/pull/17/files
- new:
On Tue, 3 Dec 2019 05:08:49 GMT, Ambarish Rapte wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 10:19:04 GMT, Robert Lichtenberger
> 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
On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 10:19:04 GMT, Robert Lichtenberger
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.
>
>
On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 10:19:06 GMT, Robert Lichtenberger
wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 10:19:05 GMT, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 10:19:04 GMT, Robert Lichtenberger
>> wrote:
>>
>>> By using the collection itself as synchronization lock we achieve behaviour
>>> that
On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 10:19:05 GMT, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 10:19:04 GMT, Robert Lichtenberger
> 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
On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 10:19:04 GMT, Robert Lichtenberger
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.
>
>
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:
13 matches
Mail list logo