Hi Oleg,
This code is very tricky. I like it that we process any events that
might be posted to the queue after the current EDT dies. However, could
you please clarify how initializing a new EDT is any different from not
letting the old one die? I.e. could we just not kill the old EDT if we
see there are more events in the queue? If not, what exact difference
does you solution bring?
It's not that I'm against your fix, it looks good actually. I'd just
like to understand the difference. Please elaborate.
Also, I recall we've fixed a number of bugs in this area. Are we sure we
don't regress after this fix?
--
best regards,
Anthony
On 2/7/2014 4:31 AM, Oleg Pekhovskiy wrote:
Hi all,
please review the next version of fix:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bagiras/8031694.2/
We with Artem Ananiev had off-line discussion and he offered let the
dying EDT to die
and process unhandled events by forcing another EDT start.
Thanks,
Oleg
On 01/28/2014 05:32 AM, Oleg Pekhovskiy wrote:
Hi all,
please review the fix
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bagiras/8031694.1/
for
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8031694
During forward-port of JDK-7189350 EDT.doDispatch was not taken into
account when calling EventQueue.detachDispatchThread().
As a result harmful optimization of this method occurred.
So when doDispatch became false, no more events in QventQueue were
handled before EDT shutdown.
I kept the optimization but added the check to
EDT.pumpEventsForFilter() that EventQueue is not empty to keep pumping.
Thanks,
Oleg
