On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 14:50:21 GMT, Robert Lichtenberger <rlich...@openjdk.org> 
wrote:

> On Tue, 3 Dec 2019 05:08:49 GMT, Ambarish Rapte <ara...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 10:19:04 GMT, Robert Lichtenberger 
>> <rlich...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> By using the collection itself as synchronization lock we achieve behaviour 
>>> that matches java.util.Collections classes.
>>> 
>>> I've create test cases that fail with the current way of synchronizing on a 
>>> separate object.
>>> 
>>> I've removed unused constructors.
>>> 
>>> ----------------
>>> 
>>> Commits:
>>>  - 7e80839f: 8232524: SynchronizedObservableMap cannot be be protected for 
>>> copying/iterating
>>>  - 8ecf3545: JDK-8232524 fixed.
>>> 
>>> Changes: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jfx/pull/17/files
>>>  Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.java.net/jfx/17/webrev.00
>>>   Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8232524
>>>   Stats: 120 lines in 2 files changed: 95 ins; 17 del; 8 mod
>>>   Patch: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jfx/pull/17.diff
>>>   Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/jfx pull/17/head:pull/17
>> 
>> The change looks good to me, added a comment for a small change in test.
>> 
>> modules/javafx.base/src/test/java/test/javafx/collections/FXCollectionsTest.java
>>  line 730:
>> 
>>> 729:             } catch (ConcurrentModificationException e) {
>>> 730:                 fail("ConcurrentModificationException should not be 
>>> thrown");
>>> 731:             }
>> 
>> The thread should be terminated here too, please add `thread.terminate();` 
>> before `fail()`
>> 
>> ----------------
>> 
>> Changes requested by arapte (Reviewer).
> 
> You're right. I just pushed the fix.

Note that this is still pending a second review from @arapte

PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jfx/pull/17

Reply via email to