On Wed, 12 Feb 2020 13:06:00 GMT, Jeanette Winzenburg <faste...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> The listeners are called back in the order they were registered in my >> implementation although I didn’t see this requirement in the spec unless I >> missed something. >> >> The performance unregistering thousands of listeners by TableView from the >> array is killing the performance of our JavaFX application. It takes up to >> 60% of JavaFX Application thread CPU and there are various bug reports >> around this same TableView performance issue. >> The set implementation has lowered this to below 1%. >> >> This pull request may be too fundamental a change to go into mainline. We >> however have to build our local OpenJFX with this fix or our application is >> unusable. >> >> I’m happy to receive any suggestions. >> >> Danny >> >> >> On 12 Feb 2020, at 12:22, Jeanette Winzenburg >> <notificati...@github.com<mailto:notificati...@github.com>> wrote: >> >> >> Although that does seem odd behaviour to me. Obviously as the original >> implementation was using an array I can see how the implementation drove >> that specification. >> >> whatever drove it (had been so since the beginning ot java desktop, at least >> since the days of swing), there is no way to change it, is it? >> >> Non of the JavaFx unit tests test for that specific case as the unit tests >> all passed. It would be nice if there was a specific test case for this >> behaviour. >> >> yeah, the test coverage is ... not optimal :) >> >> I would need to store a registration count for each listener to satisfy this >> requirement. >> >> a count plus some marker as to where it was added: >> >> addListener(firstL) >> addListener(secondL) >> addListener(firstL) >> >> must result in firstL.invalidated, seconL.invalidated, firstL.invalidated .. >> which brings us back to .. an array? >> >> — >> You are receiving this because you authored the thread. >> Reply to this email directly, view it on >> GitHub<https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/pull/108?email_source=notifications&email_token=ABTEOIWBBLX3XA3JV23OP6LRCPSXRA5CNFSM4KQ7YBNKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOELQSLEY#issuecomment-585180563>, >> or >> unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABTEOIVSPJEJ6FAJ5SFT7V3RCPSXRANCNFSM4KQ7YBNA>. > >> >> The listeners are called back in the order they were registered in my >> implementation although I didn’t see this requirement in the spec unless I >> missed something. > > yeah, you are right can't find that spec on sequence right now - maybe I > dreamed it :) @dannygonzalez the reason for the `jcheck` failure is that you have commits with two different email addresses in your branch. At this point, it's probably best to squash the commits into a single commit with `git rebase -i master` (presuming that your local `master` is up to date), and then do a force-push. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jfx/pull/108
