Hi, thanks to my confusion I applied this patch though. I left it in and added corrected the changelog. Now both patches are in, where the 2nd changes what was implemented by the first.
Sorry for the noise.
cya
Robert
Robert Schuster wrote:
> Hi,
> forget about this patch. I prepare a different one.
>
> Robert Schuster wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>I am currently working to get an application running which depends on
>>implementation details of the RI.
>>
>>This changes Container.removeAll() to make it work in a special case
>>(see added note in patch).
>>
>>ChangeLog:
>>
>>2006-05-30 Robert Schuster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> * java/awt/Container.java:
>> (removeAll): Implemented different removal mechanism, added note.
>>
>>cya
>>Robert
>>
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>Index: java/awt/Container.java
>>===================================================================
>>RCS file: /cvsroot/classpath/classpath/java/awt/Container.java,v
>>retrieving revision 1.91
>>diff -u -r1.91 Container.java
>>--- java/awt/Container.java 5 Apr 2006 10:31:26 -0000 1.91
>>+++ java/awt/Container.java 30 May 2006 17:40:36 -0000
>>@@ -457,8 +457,15 @@
>> {
>> synchronized (getTreeLock ())
>> {
>>- while (ncomponents > 0)
>>+ // In order to allow the same bad tricks to be used as in RI
>>+ // this code has to stay exactly that way: In a real-life app
>>+ // a Container subclass implemented its own vector for
>>+ // subcomponents, supplied additional addXYZ() methods
>>+ // and overrode remove(int) (but not removeAll).
>>+ for ( int i=0; i<ncomponents; i++)
>> remove(0);
>>+
>>+ ncomponents = 0;
>> }
>> }
>>
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
