On 9/16/2015 5:14 PM, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
On 9/16/2015 1:38 PM, Alexander Scherbatiy wrote:
On 9/15/2015 10:37 PM, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
On 9/15/2015 6:16 PM, Alexander Scherbatiy wrote:
On 9/11/2015 7:24 PM, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
The deadlock that you described exists only because
AbstractDocument uses locks in the UndoableEdit.undo()/redo() methods.
Applications that use UndoManager and do not use lock in the
UndoableEdit.undo()/redo() methods do not have deadlock. They
worked fine before the fix and can lost data consistency after the
fix. This is definitely the regression.
You mean scenario when a document that does not support
synchronization but anyway is modified from several threads.
You can expect that such scenario is functional only if such
document is a single atomic field.
I updated the fix
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ssadetsky/8030702/webrev.04/ take it
into account.
This looks better. There are just some comments:
- The 'inProgress' variable in
UndoManager.undo()/redo()/undoOrRedo() methods should have
synchronization.
Is it possible to move 'if (inProgress)' check into
tryUndoOrRedo() method similarly to as it was used in the version 2
of the fix?
- UndoManager line 489: why not to use the original check from the
undoOrRedo() method "if (indexOfNextAdd == edits.size())" to pick up
undo or redo action?
- UndoManager line 516: An undoable edit can be requested two
times for the ANY action because the 'undo' variable can have old
value in the second synchronized block.
Even the logic is right it is better to take an edit based on
the 'action' variable.
- UndoManager.undoOrRedo() throws CannotUndoException now instead
of CannotRedoException if the redo action is not possible.
- It is possible to get rid of the 'done ' variable in
UndoManager.tryUndoOrRedo() just simply have an infinity loop.
- It is possible to use Boolean values TRUE, FALSE or null for
three-state logic. But it is up to you to choose enums or Boolean in
the fix.
I made the changes:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ssadetsky/8030702/webrev.05/ except for
the last one. Actually triple Boolean logic is a bad style.
There are two main synchronized block in the tryUndoOrRedo()
method: one to look up an undoable edit lock and the second which use
the undoable edit lock.
In the version 02 of the fix the original code from undo() and
redo() methods were moved to these two blocks.
It is not clear why don't you want to do the same (just call
tryUndoOrRedo() with necessary argument for all
UndoManager.undo()/redo()/undoOrRedo() methods) in the latest fix?
Splitting logic like:
-------------------
420 public void undo() throws CannotUndoException {
421 if (!tryUndoOrRedo(Action.UNDO)) {
422 synchronized (this) {
423 super.undo();
424 }
425 }
426 }
-------------------
always have a question that before the fix the super.undo() was
called only for '!inProgress' condition but now the 'inProgress' can be
changed when super.undo() is called.
Thanks,
Alexandr.
Thanks,
Alexandr.
Thanks,
Alexandr.
Thanks,
Alexandr.
Thanks,
Alexandr.
Also synchronization is needed to provide coherency with the
state of the document. If those two are not provided the
document can be corrupted. This is enough most usages.
Thanks,
Alexandr.
Thanks,
Alexandr.
Thanks,
Alexandr.
Thanks,
Alexandr.
It is
I still think that updating the
UndoableManager for one particular
AbstarctManager class can be made only after
investigation of other possibilities.
You could start with choosing behavior
which you want to achieve or to keep, like:
- fix the deadlock
- atomic undo() method
- serialization
- immediate roll back action
- abstract document consistency after
undo() action
- ...
We need to pay attention to the deadlock at
first of cause.
Serialization and consistency are achieved.
Any concrete doubts?
immediate roll back action -- ?what is that?
"if user starts a long edit operation and
press undo after that he expects when the long
edit is finished it will be rolled back
immediately." - what ever does it mean.
Got it. It will work within the fairness. We
have discussed this allready.
I sacrificed undo/redo call atomicity because
you did not like doc references in undo
manager. I think it is not important for the
most multithreaded undo/redo scenarios.
Could you give more details about it. Which
doc references do you mean?
Your statement a dozen iterations ago was:
"There should be a way to solve these problems
without storing links of external classes inside
the UndoManager."
I guess you used "link" term for references. I
would recommend to use standard terminology:
reference to the object, dependency on the
class, etc... to avoid misunderstanding.
Usually "link" is in a browser document or a
tool that produces executables after compilation.
and look which of the following approaches
can better solve them (where the fist is more
preferred and the last is less preferred case):
- using UndoManager as is without adding
links from some specific classes to it
- provide an API for UndoManager to work
with UndoableEdit-s which have
synchronization for undo/redo methods
- adding links of external classes directly
to UndoManager
What do you mean under link term? A reference
or dependency?
There are two options. If UndoManager is a
class designed to be only used with the
AbstractDocument and placed in the
javax.swing.text package it definitly can have
special code to handle an abstract document
instance in a special way.
If UndoManager is a general purpose class,
it looks strange that it handles some special
classes in different way as all others. It
usually mean that there are some design
problems in this class. That is why I just
asked to look at other ways at first. Only if
other solutions are not suitable it has sense
to look at the way that you are provided.
Correct. I introduced extra dependency. It is
optional, but anyway. Of cause there is a design
problem in undo javax.swing.undo package. But I
cannot rewrite the API because we will get a
compatibility problem then. I mentioned this
several times in this thread.
We are constrained by compatibility
requirements. UndoManager is a broadly used
class we cannot change the API so drastically.
I think that you can generalize your
solution just adding an internal interface like
sun.swing.UndoableEditLock.
Every UndoableEdit which implements this
interface can provide a lock for its
synchronization.
If this will work it can be made public in
some days so other application can also have
proper synchronization for their undo/redo
actions.
OK. I added it.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ssadetsky/8030702/webrev.02/
- We can return a public class that implements
an internal interface, but we can't expose an
internal API in the public class definition.
May be it is possible to wrap an
UndoableEdit to the UndoableEditLockSupport in
the UndoableEditEvent or in some other place.
- The similar code is used both in the
UndoManager.undo() and redo() methods. Is it
possible to move this code to one method that
does undo or redo depending on the given argument?
OK. accepted.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ssadetsky/8030702/webrev.03/
- UndoManager.undo/redo methods
In your previous fix inProgress variable and
the super call were used under the lock. It may
leads to some synchronization issues if you decide
to omit it.
- UndoManager.tryUndoOrRedo()
It is possible to get rid of 'done' variable
just using an infinity loop and return the exact
result where the loop is terminated.
-
AbstractDocument.DefaultDocumentEventUndoableWrapper implements
both UndoableEdit and UndoableEditLockSupport
interfaces but UndoableEditLockSupport already
extends UndoableEdit.
- "@since 1.9" javadoc for
DefaultDocumentEventUndoableWrapper.lockEdit()/unlockEdit()
methods really belongs to the
UndoableEditLockSupport methods.
In this case there is no need for
{@inheritDoc} tag.
Thanks,
Alexandr.
Thanks,
Alexandr.
Thanks,
Alexandr.
"adding links of external classes directly to
UndoManager" - Sorry, did not catch what are
you about? Could you clarify?
--Semyon
Thanks,
Alexandr.
--Semyon
There is a mistake in your scenario
steps: fireUndoableEditUpdate() is
called before the freeing the lock (see
AbstractDocument.handleInsertString()
method).
Yet another argument do not do this
from the user experience: if user
starts a long edit operation and
press undo after that he expects
when the long edit is finished it
will be rolled back immediately.
It is not true. The first
process adds his undo edit to the
UndoManager. While a user trying to
press undo the second long process
can be started.
That is what led to this issue
because when undo is in progress
document writing should be allowed.
Sorry but I didn't see why is "It not
true"? Then what is your expectation
when you press undo button while edit
is not finished yet and there is no
way to abort it?
It would be good if it works as
you described. But it does not work in
this way with or without your fix.
undo() action has writeLock in
AbstractDocument and because of it is
always executed after insert string
action.
If a user sees that undo is
available, he can call it but the
second long insertString process can
start earlier and acquire the writeLock.
That is what we are going to fix. And
this does work after this fix. Undo
call will be blocked by the long edit
until the last is done without any
deadlocks. And when edit is done undo()
will acquire the lock and prevent any
new edits until undo() is done. Please
provide a scenario when in your opinion
it does not wok.
The first process starts for 5
minutes. When it is finished a user sees
that he can press undo. While he is
pressing undo button, the second long
process starts for 10 minutes and
acquire the write lock. The user presses
undo but he needs to wait 10 more
minutes until the second process is
finished.
Actually, if two or more threads are
waiting for a monitor it is not
determined which one will get the control
after the signal. To order that the
ReentrantLock API could be used but
AbstractDocument uses wait/notify for
locking. I think it is not worth to dig
so deep. It does not cause any issues
The issue that is considered is "if
user starts a long edit operation and
press undo after that he expects when the
long edit is finished it will be rolled
back immediately."
If you are agree that it is not always
possible to do the roll back "immediately"
there is no point to discussion.
I agree. On that level it is not possible
to predict the order exactly in such
scenario. But the state of the document
will be consistent. And it is possible to
have it predictable using lock fairness.
because undo() always get the last edit
anyway. If it will be important for
somebody to preserve the execution order
on that level of details we will fix it.
So undo should be executed after
the edit is fully performed because
the corresponding UndoableEdit
which undos this edit can be
produced only after the edit is done.
I think at first we need to look on
the situation externally rather
than concentrate on implementation
questions like in which class do
references go.
Yes, please look on this
situation from a user point of view
which wants to implement simple Java
Painter.
But could you describe this scenario?
Just steps when this simple Painter
fails under the proposed fix?I
Note, if this Painter's content is
not an AbstarctDocument it will work
as before the fix.
Any application that uses
UndoManager and wants to have the same
synchronization (have the same lock
both for UndoableEdit adding and
undo() method execution) will have the
same deadlock problems.
As I have already written:
---------------
Consider someone writes Java
Painter application where it is
possible to draw lines and images and
uses UndoManager for undo/redo actions.
He might want that it was possible
to work with copied images. He can get
lock on ctrl+v action, process an
image, prepare UndoableEdit and notify
the UndoManager.
He also can use lock/unlock in the
undo action to have a consistent state
with the processed image. If someone
calls undo action during the image
processing and gets a deadlock does it
mean that link from Java Painter need
to be added to the UndoManager?
---------------
Still do not understand the steps for
your Painter scenario. A link
(reference?) can be added if it is
required to implement functionality. If
the content is not an AbstarctDocument
it may be required to implement custom
UndoManager to support the same behavior.
What is the difference between the
AbstractDocument and other classes (in
Swing or user defined)? Do you mean that
the UndoManager is intended only to be
used with AbstractDocument and it
shouldn't be used in other cases where
undo/redo actions are required for non
text data?
No, undo manager can be used with any
classes. But since we have it assigned to
AbstarctDocument so often we need to do
our best to make undo manager working
with it correctly because users do not
like deadlocks usualy. For other classes
we cannot provide synchronization by
default because there is no API to get
the lock. So it remains up to user how to
provide the undo manager synchronization
with the object it controls for other
classes
What we should do just to understand
that the same deadlock can happen in an
user applications because he wants to use
the same synchronization both for the data
processing and for the undo action. If so,
there should be two investigations:
1. Is it possible to achieve the
requested goals without changing
UndoManager? In other words The
UndoManager should be used in proper way
as it is required by its design.
2. Is it possible to update the
UndoManager API to provide functionality
that meets new requests?
With API change it is reachable. But I
would preserve the current API as less
constrained. If we add some methods for
locking we will determine the way how a
user should synchronize his undoable
content. And user may not need any
synchronization at all. We should keep in
mind this opportunity as well.
Only after this discussion there can be
a reason to look to other ways.
Thanks,
Alexandr.
I think our undo manager implementation
do not pretend to be used as the global
undo manager for big complex applications
and it cannot cover all possible undo
approaches. But some basic functionality
can be provided and it should be usable.
Without edits serialization approach it
is not usable for multithreaded use. So
either we do not pretend to provide a
multithreaded undo manager and remove all
synchronize keywords from UndoManager
class, either we need to support
serialization approach which does not
cause deadlocks.
Thanks,
Alexandr.
I don't see a contradiction here, could
you point on it more precisely?
Thanks,
Alexandr.
Thanks,
Alexandr.
Thanks,
Alexandr.
--Semyon
Thanks,
Alexandr.
--Semyon
On 7/30/2015 5:27 PM, Alexander
Scherbatiy wrote:
Consider someone writes
Java Painter application where
it is possible to draw lines
and images and uses
UndoManager for undo/redo
actions.
He might want that it was
possible to work with copied
images. He can get lock on
ctrl+v action, process an
image, prepare UndoableEdit
and notify the UndoManager.
He also can use lock/unlock
in the undo action to have a
consistent state with the
processed image. If someone
calls undo action during the
image processing and gets a
deadlock does it mean that
link from Java Painter need to
be added to the UndoManager?
Thanks,
Alexandr.
It looks like
AbstractDocument violates
UndoManager synchronization
contract when it both use
lock to work with
UndoManager and in the
implemented undo() method.
Thanks,
Alexandr.
--Semyon
