On 26.02.2014 22:43, Mandy Chung wrote:
On 2/25/2014 11:08 PM, Ivan Gerasimov wrote:
I missed that you remove the strong reference (line 57). I think
it's good to hold the strong reference so that
ReferenceQueue.remove(timeout) will timeout and the test can verify
reliably.
This is an important part.
If we didn't remove the strong reference then both threads would wait
for the specified period of time even without the fix.
The point is to make both threads wake up from lock.wait(timeout),
and we do it by removing the strong reference and forcing it be enqueued
Now it becomes clear what the test does (thanks). It'd be helpful to
add some comments. The test should also verify that only one thread
gets a non-null reference == weakReference and the other should get a
null reference in addition to the wait time > TIMEOUT.
Good point, thank you Mandy. I should have added comments at the very
beginning.
Would you take a look at the last updated webrev, with the suggested
changes?
Sincerely yours,
Ivan
Mandy
