On Sat, 16 May 2026 11:41:51 GMT, Marius Hanl <[email protected]> wrote:
> > The EffectPeer instances were disposed, but not removed from the map
>
> Yes, that is what I mean. But is there any side effect we may have now that
> we remove those entries from the map?
No, I don't think so.
> If I understand you right, synchronization is the reason you chose to not do?:
>
> ```
> for (EffectPeer<?> peer : peerCache.values()) {
> peer.dispose();
> }
> peerCache.clear();
> ```
>
> Because this would save us the temp array and is a bit easier too.
The temporary array is nothing to worry about, this doesn't happen repeatedly
on a hot path. The reason I'm doing it like this is to be able to call the
dispose method without holding a lock, so as to not introduce any risk of
deadlocks. Removing synchronization entirely seems reasonable, but is out of
scope for this PR.
-------------
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/2091#discussion_r3252768043
