You should create the diff against the repository. This will allow to
test your fix without applying a bunch of patches.
--
Thanks,
Alexander.
On 06/29/2016 02:49 PM, Robin Stevens wrote:
Hello Alexander,
just one last question. I assume I need to send a new webrev . But do
I have to create one which contains the diff compared to the current
tip of the repository, or do I need to create one which contains the
diff compared to my previous patch ?
Robin
On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Alexander Zvegintsev
<alexander.zvegint...@oracle.com
<mailto:alexander.zvegint...@oracle.com>> wrote:
Hello Robin,
Actually I missed your review, when I've posted mine.
I think that we should proceed with your review as it was the
first one. So please disregard my review request.
On 6/29/16 12:40 PM, Robin Stevens wrote:
Hello Alexandr, Semyon,
2 reviews of this proposed path have happened.
One from Alexandr Scherbatiy who stated that the fix looked good.
One from Alexander Zvegintsev who had some comments, and
immediately mailed his own review with a modified version of my
proposed patch (see
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/swing-dev/2016-June/006196.html).
His patch is based on my patch, but implements the comments he had.
I am not sure what I need to do now.
I can address his comments, but then I would end up with the same
patch as he proposed in
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/swing-dev/2016-June/006196.html
.
Please let me know how to proceed with this.
Thanks,
Robin
On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 11:16 AM, Alexandr Scherbatiy
<alexandr.scherba...@oracle.com
<mailto:alexandr.scherba...@oracle.com>> wrote:
On 6/29/2016 11:43 AM, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
It looks like that fix is posted twice for the same issue...
Which one is the correct one?
It should be the first contributed fix. We are just waiting
fro the response from the fix contributor:
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/swing-dev/2016-June/006200.html
Thanks,
Alexandr.
--Semyon
On 6/23/2016 7:08 PM, Robin Stevens wrote:
Hello all,
attached is a webrev for issue JDK-8158325 Memory leak in
com.apple.laf.ScreenMenu: removed JMenuItems are still
referenced.
Patch contains a test case which reveals the bug, and a fix.
There were a few issues with the ScreenMenu class:
- The ContainerListener was attached to the JMenu and not
to the JMenu#getPopupMenu. The JMenu itself does not fire
any ContainerEvents, but
the popup does. As a result, the cleanup code in ScreenMenu
was never triggered. The patch fixes this by attaching the
ContainerListener to the popup menu.
Note that the ScreenMenu class also attaches a
ComponentListener to the JMenu. I had no idea whether that
one must be attached to the popup menu as well, so I did
not change it.
- The cleanup code was not triggered when removeAll() was
called from the updateItems method. I fixed this by
overriding the remove(int) method, and
putting the cleanup code in that method. An alternative
here would be to not override the remove(int) method, but
instead call fItems.clear() after calling removeAll() .
However, overriding the remove(int) method sounded more
robust to me.
- The cleanup code was incorrect. It tried to remove an
item from fItems (a map) by calling remove with the value
instead of the key. Now the remove is called with the key.
Because the cleanup code has been moved, this required me
to loop over the map as I have no direct access to the key
in the
remove(int) method
- The test can be run on all platforms, although it was
written for an OS X specific bug. As it can run on all
platforms, I did not disable it on non OS X platforms. Let
me know if I need to adjust this.
Kind regards,
Robin
