Re: [Integrated] RFR: 8232524: SynchronizedObservableMap cannot be be protected for copying/iterating

2019-12-05 Thread Kevin Rushforth
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 !

Re: RFR: 8232524: SynchronizedObservableMap cannot be be protected for copying/iterating

2019-12-04 Thread Kevin Rushforth
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

Re: [Approved] RFR: 8232524: SynchronizedObservableMap cannot be be protected for copying/iterating

2019-12-04 Thread Ambarish Rapte
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:

Re: [Approved] RFR: 8232524: SynchronizedObservableMap cannot be be protected for copying/iterating

2019-12-04 Thread Ambarish Rapte
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:

Re: RFR: 8232524: SynchronizedObservableMap cannot be be protected for copying/iterating

2019-12-04 Thread Kevin Rushforth
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

Re: [Approved] RFR: 8232524: SynchronizedObservableMap cannot be be protected for copying/iterating

2019-12-04 Thread Kevin Rushforth
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:

Re: [Rev 01] RFR: 8232524: SynchronizedObservableMap cannot be be protected for copying/iterating

2019-12-04 Thread Robert Lichtenberger
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:

Re: RFR: 8232524: SynchronizedObservableMap cannot be be protected for copying/iterating

2019-12-04 Thread Robert Lichtenberger
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

Re: RFR: 8232524: SynchronizedObservableMap cannot be be protected for copying/iterating

2019-12-02 Thread Ambarish Rapte
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. > >

Re: RFR: 8232524: SynchronizedObservableMap cannot be be protected for copying/iterating

2019-10-21 Thread Robert Lichtenberger
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

Re: RFR: 8232524: SynchronizedObservableMap cannot be be protected for copying/iterating

2019-10-21 Thread Robert Lichtenberger
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

Re: RFR: 8232524: SynchronizedObservableMap cannot be be protected for copying/iterating

2019-10-21 Thread Kevin Rushforth
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. > >

RFR: 8232524: SynchronizedObservableMap cannot be be protected for copying/iterating

2019-10-21 Thread Robert Lichtenberger
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: