1) The specification of Observable states that: "An implementation of
{@code Observable} may support lazy evaluation [...]"
It seems to me that this is an optional feature, and a user of this
API must be aware that any particular Observable implementation may
not support it, or that it chooses to implement a custom strategy to
reduce the number of invalidation events ("[...] should strive to
generate as few events as possible").
This means that a user of this API must expect that any particular
Observable implementation may generate an invalidation event for every
single change, or for changes in particular situations (for example,
after an InvalidationListener was added).
Let me summarize that as follows: Any well-behaved listener must
tolerate any lazy evaluation strategy.
I think this is important, because the "problem" that is being
discussed here can't, by definition, cause incorrect behavior for
users of the API.
2) Currently, adding an InvalidationListener validates the property.
This has implications on what I would see as "local reasoning" vs.
"global reasoning": developers can reason about their code in
isolation, and will generally get it right. Changing it means that
whether some listener code works can be dependent on other parts of
the system (parts that might validate the property, such that the
listener code will "accidentally" pick up the next change to the
property).
>From an API standpoint, I would consider this an unfortunate situation
because in many scenarios it will "just work" and not prompt any
further consideration from developers, even though the code that set
up the listener was incorrectly implemented. That's because a correct
implementation would be similar to the following "protocol":
prop.addListener(observable -> { ... prop.getValue(); ... });
prop.getValue();
Any code that doesn't use this protocol to set up an
InvalidationListener is now potentially incorrectly implemented, and
accidental validation will obscure this defect in most cases. Sure, we
can include this information in the specification of Observable, but
this is so easy to get wrong that even with explicitly mentioning it,
developers will routinely get it wrong. This makes for brittle
codebases and obscure defects, where changes to one part of a system
can unexpectedly and silently affect other parts of the system.
We can avoid all of that by changing the specification as follows: If
an Observable implementation supports lazy evaluation, it must not
elide an invalidation event after new listeners have been added.
On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 6:39 PM Nir Lisker <nlis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I disagree with this interpretation. Observable says
>
>>
>> Implementations in this library mark themselves as invalid when the first
>> invalidation event occurs. They do not generate anymore invalidation events
>> until their value is recomputed and valid again.
>
>
> And ObservableValue says
>
>> An ObservableValue generates two types of events: ... An invalidation event
>> is generated if the current value is not valid anymore.
>
>
>> Implementations in this library mark themselves as invalid when the first
>> invalidation event occurs. They do not generate any more invalidation events
>> until their value is recomputed and valid again.
>
>
> It's clear that the validity is with respect to the value, not the listener.
> There is 1 value and it is either valid or invalid.
>
> If we want to define validity on a per-listener basis, the docs would need to
> be changed too. I don't know how much sense it makes practically because I
> don't think anyone used them with this intention in mind. It could be a
> middleground to bridge the current "negligence" with the stricter docs, but
> it's a more fundamental change conceptually.
>
> On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 8:02 PM Michael Strauß <michaelstr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> The documentation of `Observable` states that "an implementation [...]
>> may support lazy evaluation" and that "implementations [...] should
>> strive to generate as few events as possible".
>> This seems to me like it would be within spec to fire an invalidation
>> event for every single change. It would also be within spec to fire
>> redundant invalidation events only in certain scenarios (like adding a
>> listener).
>>
>> The problem could also be approached from a different angle: what does
>> it mean for a property to be "valid"?
>> As implemented, the "valid" state is an opaque and unknowable
>> implementation detail. We could re-define "valid" to mean: valid from
>> the perspective of an InvalidationListener.
>> A newly-added InvalidationListener wouldn't know that the property is
>> invalid (and has no way of knowing), and can therefore reasonably
>> assume that, from its perspective, the property is valid. It would
>> receive an invalidation event when the property value is changed.
>> From the perspective of pre-existing listeners, however, the property
>> could well have been invalid all the time, so they won't receive an
>> invalidation event.
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 2:16 AM Kevin Rushforth
>> <kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Given that the intention of InvalidationListener was to be a
>> > light-weight way to listen to properties without causing a binding chain
>> > to be revalidated, it does seem reasonable to me that the listener is
>> > only fired on the valid --> invalid transition, which is the specified
>> > behavior, even if the implementation doesn't currently do that in all
>> > cases.
>> >
>> > The two related questions then are:
>> >
>> > 1. Should adding an invalidation listener to property do an immediate
>> > get(), which will ensure that the property is then valid? This will
>> > force an eager evaluation of the property and "arm" the property to fire
>> > an invalidation even the next time it is invalidated.
>> >
>> > 2. Should adding an invalidation listener to a currently invalid
>> > property cause the listener to be called (either immediately or the next
>> > time the object is invalidated)?
>> >
>> > I think the ideal answer to both questions is "no", although I share
>> > John's concern that changing this behavior for InvalidationListeners
>> > could break applications. So the question is: how likely do we think
>> > that changing this behavior will break existing applications?
>> >
>> > I think it's something we can and should consider changing. Unless there
>> > are serious concerns, I would support changing this behavior as part of
>> > avoiding eager evaluation when using invalidation listeners. It would
>> > need to be well tested (of course), and would need a CSR describing the
>> > compatibility risk, and should probably get a release note.
>> >
>> > Any concerns in doing this?
>> >
>> > On the related question, I like the idea of nulling out the current
>> > value when a property is bound.
>> >
>> > -- Kevin
>> >
>> >
>> > On 9/11/2021 9:41 AM, Nir Lisker wrote:
>> > > I think that we need your input on this to move it forward.
>> > >
>> > > On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 7:49 AM Nir Lisker <nlis...@gmail.com
>> > > <mailto:nlis...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > so the value field should perhaps be nulled out when bound.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > There was a PR for something like that in the old repo:
>> > > https://github.com/javafxports/openjdk-jfx/pull/110
>> > >
>> > > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/javafxports/openjdk-jfx/pull/110__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!bIbtLsC0tg02c9a_lgKnM1Xta2USX8QkKRL4imOUSw8xshJsVquOeulplJR7dfEzQUf6$>
>> > >
>> > > On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 5:35 AM John Hendrikx <hj...@xs4all.nl
>> > > <mailto:hj...@xs4all.nl>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On 02/09/2021 11:57, Nir Lisker wrote:
>> > > > So in order
>> > > > to make sure that a new interested invalidation listener
>> > > does not miss
>> > > > the fact that a property was *already* invalid, the
>> > > easiest solution
>> > > > might have been to revalidate it upon registration of a
>> > > new listener
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > But why does an invalidation listener need to know the past
>> > > state of the
>> > > > property? It is only interested in the valid -> invalid
>> > > transition. If
>> > > > the property was invalid then the listener (in theory)
>> > > shouldn't receive
>> > > > any events anyway on subsequent invalidations. (I understand
>> > > that you
>> > > > don't justify this, I'm posing it as a general question.)
>> > >
>> > > Strictly speaking, no, if users are using InvalidationListener
>> > > correctly
>> > > then this is definitely correct behavior. I'm not really
>> > > advocating a
>> > > change, and I'd even prefer that it be brought in line with the
>> > > documentation.
>> > >
>> > > I think however that many users are not using it correctly and
>> > > expect an
>> > > invalidation event always the next time the value changes (and
>> > > their
>> > > listener will read that value, validating it again), making it
>> > > act like
>> > > a light-weight ChangeListener. I know that I probably have
>> > > written code
>> > > that made that assumption, and would in the past not even
>> > > think twice
>> > > about replacing a change with an invalidation listener or vice
>> > > versa if
>> > > that happened to be a better fit. Which is sort of what
>> > > happened as well
>> > > in the bidirectional binding PR, and the issue slipped past
>> > > the author
>> > > and two reviewers.
>> > >
>> > > > I suggest that we split the problem into 2: one is the case
>> > > where the
>> > > > property was valid when the listener was attached, and the
>> > > other is when
>> > > > it was invalid.
>> > > > * A valid starting state. In this case attaching a listener
>> > > shouldn't
>> > > > need to do anything. A subsequent invalidation event will be
>> > > sent
>> > > > regardless. Currently, it is calling get() redundantly.
>> > >
>> > > True, the call to get is redundant in this case. Ugly too,
>> > > calling get
>> > > and discarding its result, while the intention is to force the
>> > > property
>> > > to become valid.
>> > >
>> > > > * An invalid starting state. In this case the documentation
>> > > says that
>> > > > nothing needs to happen, but get() is called anyway. Here, the
>> > > > difference is that a subsequent invalidation event is sent
>> > > in one case
>> > > > and not in the other. The only way to advance here is to
>> > > make a design
>> > > > decision on what should happen, at least that's how I see it.
>> > >
>> > > The docs are even more specific I think, they say no more
>> > > events will be
>> > > generated until it becomes valid -- it doesn't leave any
>> > > option open
>> > > that it could generate events if it wanted to.
>> > >
>> > > > As to the implementation of a possible solution, suppose we
>> > > add the
>> > > > isValid method. Upon attaching an invalidation listener, if
>> > > the property
>> > > > is valid, we can skip the get() call. That solves the valid
>> > > starting
>> > > > state issue. The question is what to do if the property is
>> > > not valid.
>> > > >
>> > > > I also noticed an odd design choice in the implementation of
>> > > properties:
>> > > > the value field does not update if the property is bound,
>> > > instead, the
>> > > > result of the binding is returned and the value field holds
>> > > an outdated
>> > > > value (until the property is unbound).
>> > >
>> > > Yeah, that might not be a wise decision as that can lead to
>> > > memory being
>> > > referenced that users might expect to be freed. I didn't see
>> > > anywhere
>> > > defined what will happen to the value of the property when it
>> > > is unbound
>> > > again. The current implementation will keep its last value
>> > > (during the
>> > > unbind it will take the last value and assign it to its own value
>> > > field), so the value field should perhaps be nulled out when
>> > > bound.
>> > >
>> > > --John
>> > >
>> >
