<AWT Dev> [PATCH] ComponentAccessor

[Roman Kennke]

Hi Olegm

> Looks fine for me.

Cool. I take it, I have to wait for another reviewer, or can I push it
now? What are the exact rules for this?

/Roman

> 
> Oleg.
> 
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 7:48 PM, Roman Kennke <roman at kennke.org> wrote:
> > Hi Oleg,
> >
> >> >> I'd synchronized setting/getting of access field.  And (perhaps) I'd only allow
> >> >> set this field once.
> >> >
> >> > Good ideas. I implemented both suggestions. Webrev is updated at the
> >> > same URL.
> >>
> >> As far as I can see you add synchronization only to setter, but you
> >> should also add
> >> synchronization when you read this field.  So you should either make
> >> access field
> >> volatile, or add synchronized getter and use it to get the field.
> >
> > Duh, you are right. I should better think twice before I send new
> > patch :-). Now it should be correct, what do you think?
> >
> > Webrev still here: http://kennke.org/~roman/componentaccess/webrev/
> >
> > /Roman
> >
> > --
> > http://kennke.org/blog/
> >
-- 
http://kennke.org/blog/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Url : http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/awt-dev/attachments/20090116/674567a9/attachment.bin