On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 21:27:36 GMT, John Hendrikx <jhendr...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Description copied from issue:
>>
>> There are up to two additional invalidations performed that really should be
>> avoided, causing downstream fluent bindings to be recomputed with the same
>> values. This is very confusing as these should only be called when there is
>> an actual change, and not called for the same value multiple times in a row.
>>
>> These two extra invalidations have two different causes, each causing an
>> additional invalidation to be triggered:
>>
>> 1) ObjectBinding's `isObserved` is delayed slightly. When you add a
>> listener, the listener is added internally and the binding is made valid;
>> this triggers some downstream activity which checks the `isObserved` status
>> to decide whether to start observation of properties -- unfortunately this
>> still returns `false` at that time. A work-around for this existed by
>> calling `getValue` again in `LazyObjectBinding` with a huge comment
>> explaining why this is needed. Although this works, it still means that a
>> downstream function like `map` is called an additional time while it should
>> really only be called once.
>>
>> The solution is to ensure `isObserved` returns `true` before the
>> `ExpressionHelper` is called. Already verified this solves the problem.
>> This also means the work-around in `LazyObjectBinding` is no longer needed,
>> which seems like a big win.
>>
>> 2) The second additional call originates from a different issue. When
>> `ConditionalBinding` (which implements the `when` construct) sees its
>> condition property changing, it always invalidates itself. This is however
>> only necessary if the current cached value (if it was valid) differs from
>> the current source value. To prevent an unnecessary invalidation, and the
>> resulting revalidation calls that this will trigger, a simple check to see
>> if the value actually changed before invalidating solves this problem.
>
> John Hendrikx has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
> commit since the last revision:
>
> Address review comments
>
> - Added extra tests cases that count invalidations
> - Added explanatory comment
> I like the test coverage now.
>
> I tried to test the condition
>
> ```java
> else if (isValid() && source.getValue() != getValue()) {
> invalidate();
> }
> ```
>
> with this sequence:
>
> ```java
> property.set("e");
> condition.set(false);
> property.set("y");
> property.set("e");
> condition.set(true);
> ```
>
> I wanted to test the change to the behavior of the condition changing while
> the binding is valid, and the value is the same. However, the check for the
> value is done with reference equality, so it will always invalidate (unless I
> create my own objects and reuse them). Is this to align with the behavior of
> a change, or will `equals` make more sense here?
Well, I am just following the specification here, but JavaFX itself isn't...
We may need to make a decision here. JavaFX is not consistent itself where it
applies `equals` and where it uses reference equality:
|Class|Equality Type|
|---|---|
|*PropertyBase except String in setValue|==|
|StringPropertyBase in setValue|equals|
|ExpressionHelper before calling ChangeListeners|equals|
The specification on `ObservableValue` says:
> All implementing classes in the JavaFX library check for a change using
> reference equality (and not object equality, {@code Object#equals(Object)})
> of the value.
But I'm afraid that's not true. While indeed all the PropertyBase classes
"setValue" methods (aside from String), use reference equality, this is not the
case for the helper they use for notifying listeners (`ExpressionHelper` uses
`equals`).
For immutable classes, this is absolutely fine, and this is why it works pretty
okay for `StringPropertyBase`. However, using equals on **mutable** classes is
going to land you into trouble, as you may miss reference changes that turn out
to be significant later (ie. two instances may be equals now, but they may not
be equals in the future, and if you have the wrong reference, you will not have
the correct instance). There is a test that shows how this can fail with an
`ObjectProperty<ObservableList>` (although it has nothing to do with the
`ObservableList`... `ObjectProperty<List>` would have similar problems):
`LambdaMultipleListHandlerTest#testInvalidationOfListValuedObservable`, but it
is easy enough to reproduce yourself:
SomethingMutable instance1 = ...;
SomethingMutable instance2 = instance1.clone();
ObjectProperty<SomethingMutable> prop = new
SimpleObjectProperty<>(instance1);
prop.addListener((obj, o, n) -> { store n somewhere });
prop.setValue(instance2); // invalidates, but won't inform change
listeners as they're equals
// the value stored by the change listener is now the WRONG instance!!
Also see my post of 21/3/2023 "Changes detected by reference equality for all
ObservableValues... except String" on the mailinglist.
# Solution Proposal
As said before, `equals` and immutable types are not the problem. You get in
trouble when types are mutable. So I propose the following: use reference
equality everywhere but give String a special status. Why String? It is
immutable and has a special status in Java, similar to primitive types (ie, it
has its own operator `+`, and can be declared without `new String`). Arrays
also are special in Java, but these are mutable so reference equality is what
we'd want here.
I further propose to put this new form of JavaFX equality in a common class, so
it can be used easily whenever you need to do check equality (like in a binding
or `ExpressionHelper` for example).
Testing by reference equality is really the best solution... you may get a
change you didn't want, but at least you are kept up to date with the correct
instance. For Strings we can make an exception, but using `equals` for all
other object types, which includes mutable types, is going to cause headaches.
-------------
PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/1056#issuecomment-1501249711
