On Fri, 9 Oct 2020 22:59:37 GMT, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
>> @kevinrushforth
>>
>> To show an improvement in time efficiency, the
>> We need to fix the other high-priority hotspots first. I have determined
>> that the current proposed change in the
>> Run-Length approach needs a lot of time to
On Fri, 9 Oct 2020 17:47:31 GMT, yosbits
wrote:
> * new BitSet(c.size())
>
> Don't you notice this mistake?
It certainly isn't an exact size, and probably not a very good guess in many
cases (e.g., a small number of objects
where one near the end is chosen), but it is at least a lower limit
On Fri, 9 Oct 2020 16:51:05 GMT, yosbits
wrote:
>> I understand that this will improve the performance of this method in some
>> cases (but not all as you correctly point
>> out), but what I really meant by my questions was: When does this matter to
>> an application's overall performance and
On Fri, 9 Oct 2020 13:37:57 GMT, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
>> The performance improvements of the first change were self-evident, but
>> I agree that the current changes need to be explained.
>>
>> BitSet Features
>> * When using BitSet, memory usage (N/8) is wasted in the case of removing
>> the
On Fri, 9 Oct 2020 05:31:54 GMT, yosbits
wrote:
>> Before I review the actual proposed change, I have a pair of related
>> high-level questions that I should have asked at
>> the beginning of this review.
>> 1. What is the expected performance gain, and under what conditions would
>> you see
On Fri, 9 Oct 2020 01:06:54 GMT, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
>> It seems that many people are interested, so I pushed the change.
>> I don't understand how to proceed with the review on Github correctly, so if
>> I have anything to do, please comment.
>>
>> java
>> for(int
On Wed, 7 Oct 2020 21:14:14 GMT, yosbits
wrote:
>> **The next implementation will probably have a good balance between space
>> and time.**
>> Unless you do something like delete the even or odd indexes
>> The space efficiency is very high.
>>
>> Currently being tested.
>>
>> Java
>>
On Wed, 7 Oct 2020 18:34:23 GMT, yosbits
wrote:
>> I plan to push changes that remain compatible, respecting the judgment of
>> the project leader, but I would like to point
>> out the following:
>> There seems to be a problem with the reproduction code as follows.
>>
>> * If there are
On Wed, 7 Oct 2020 14:24:36 GMT, yosbits
wrote:
>> Hopefully not looking in the wrong version but:
>> (1) When dealing with BitSets previously, maybe this was by design butI
>> didn’t see any usage of BitSet’s
>> “clear()” to remove items from the BitSet. Although given move to
>> remove it
On Wed, 7 Oct 2020 12:11:12 GMT, Eric Bresie
wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm preparing a change that won't break compatibility, so stay tuned.
>>> The test seems to need to be added.
>>
>> sounds good :) Note, that I'm working on
>> [JDK-8254040](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8254040)
On Wed, 7 Oct 2020 12:06:09 GMT, Jeanette Winzenburg
wrote:
>> I'm preparing a change that won't break compatibility, so stay tuned.
>> The test seems to need to be added.
>
>>
>>
>> I'm preparing a change that won't break compatibility, so stay tuned.
>> The test seems to need to be added.
>
On Wed, 7 Oct 2020 11:39:29 GMT, yosbits
wrote:
>
>
> I'm preparing a change that won't break compatibility, so stay tuned.
> The test seems to need to be added.
sounds good :) Note, that I'm working on
[JDK-8254040](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8254040) which will add
On Wed, 7 Oct 2020 11:30:16 GMT, Jeanette Winzenburg
wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> did anyone look into Java-Collection-Frameworks (ArrayList and friends or
>>> Eclipse-Collections) how they handle this
>>> situation effeciently?
>>
>> not me - but good idea, provided they support modifications to the
On Wed, 7 Oct 2020 10:39:02 GMT, Tom Schindl wrote:
>
>
> did anyone look into Java-Collection-Frameworks (ArrayList and friends or
> Eclipse-Collections) how they handle this
> situation effeciently?
not me - but good idea, provided they support modifications to the source list
while
On Wed, 7 Oct 2020 09:38:40 GMT, Jeanette Winzenburg
wrote:
>> The error occurs as specified in getSelectedItems(). It seems to be correct
>> to write the following
>>
>> `listView.getItems().removeAll(new HashSet<>(selectedItems))
>> `
>>
>> (or ArrayList)
>>
>> It could be interpreted
On Wed, 7 Oct 2020 08:07:52 GMT, yosbits
wrote:
>
>
> The error occurs as specified in getSelectedItems().
no, both spec and implementation (at least as far as its relation to this
issue) is correct.
> It seems to be correct to write the following
>
> `listView.getItems().removeAll(new
On Tue, 6 Oct 2020 16:36:44 GMT, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
>> yosbits has refreshed the contents of this pull request, and previous
>> commits have been removed. The incremental views
>> will show differences compared to the previous content of the PR.
>
> As mentioned in a reply to a comment by
On Mon, 5 Oct 2020 19:22:41 GMT, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
>>> The listView test is passing for the bitSet and for the back-to-front
>>> approach. Can we imagine a context where the
>>> broken selectedItems impl would add wreckage to the latter?
>>
>> To answer my own question: yes. A failing
On Tue, 22 Sep 2020 07:35:49 GMT, yosbits
wrote:
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8253086
>>
>> ObservableListWrapper.java
>> * public boolean removeAll(Collection c)
>> * public boolean retainAll(Collection c)
>>
>> These two methods use BitSet, but it doesn't make sense.
>> By
On Sun, 4 Oct 2020 09:24:16 GMT, Jeanette Winzenburg
wrote:
>> the problem was (and still is) in MultipleSelectionModelBase:
>>
>> selectedItems = new
>> SelectedItemsReadOnlyObservableList(selectedIndices, () ->
>> getItemCount()) {
>> @Override protected T
On Sat, 3 Oct 2020 11:13:28 GMT, Jeanette Winzenburg
wrote:
> The listView test is passing for the bitSet and for the back-to-front
> approach. Can we imagine a context where the
> broken selectedItems impl would add wreckage to the latter?
To answer my own question: yes. A failing test with
On Fri, 2 Oct 2020 16:29:56 GMT, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
>> The fix looks good to me. I left a few comments on the test, but it looks
>> like a great start.
>
> One meta-comment:
>
>> @yososs yososs force-pushed the
>>
On Sat, 3 Oct 2020 10:09:40 GMT, Jeanette Winzenburg
wrote:
>> modules/javafx.base/src/test/java/test/com/sun/javafx/collections/ObservableListWrapperTest.java
>> line 110:
>>
>>> 108: assertTrue(list.retainAll(Collections.EMPTY_SET));
>>> 109: assertEquals(0, list.size());
On Fri, 2 Oct 2020 16:23:23 GMT, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
>> yosbits has refreshed the contents of this pull request, and previous
>> commits have been removed. The incremental views
>> will show differences compared to the previous content of the PR.
>
>
On Fri, 2 Oct 2020 18:20:18 GMT, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
>>> the reason BitSet was introduced was to ensure that the elements are
>>> removed from this List in reverse order (prior to
>>> that fix, they were removed in forward order with the loop index being
>>> messed up).
>>
>> But why do
On Fri, 2 Oct 2020 17:16:03 GMT, Nir Lisker wrote:
>> I looked at the fix for
>> [JDK-8093144](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8093144), and the
>> reason BitSet was
>> introduced was to ensure that the elements are removed from this List in
>> reverse order (prior to that fix, they
On Fri, 2 Oct 2020 16:01:20 GMT, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
> the reason BitSet was introduced was to ensure that the elements are removed
> from this List in reverse order (prior to
> that fix, they were removed in forward order with the loop index being messed
> up).
But why do they need to be
On Fri, 2 Oct 2020 16:27:09 GMT, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
>> yosbits has refreshed the contents of this pull request, and previous
>> commits have been removed. The incremental views
>> will show differences compared to the previous content of the PR.
>
> The fix looks good to me. I left a few
On Tue, 22 Sep 2020 07:35:49 GMT, yosbits
wrote:
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8253086
>>
>> ObservableListWrapper.java
>> * public boolean removeAll(Collection c)
>> * public boolean retainAll(Collection c)
>>
>> These two methods use BitSet, but it doesn't make sense.
>> By
On Tue, 22 Sep 2020 01:58:48 GMT, yosbits
wrote:
>> digging a bit: the BitSet was introduced with
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8093144 to solve some problem
>> with selectionModels - don't know whether those still hold (there had been
>> extensive changes to selection since
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8253086
>
> ObservableListWrapper.java
> * public boolean removeAll(Collection c)
> * public boolean retainAll(Collection c)
>
> These two methods use BitSet, but it doesn't make sense.
> By rewriting to the equivalent behavior that does not use
31 matches
Mail list logo
