<AWT Dev> [8] Review request for 2228674: Fix failed for CR 7162144

[Anthony Petrov]

This indeed makes things clearer. Thanks for the explanation, Artem.

I'm fine with the fix then (although I've noticed Oleg has already 
pushed it...)

--
best regards,
Anthony

On 10/16/2013 05:24 PM, Artem Ananiev wrote:
>
> On 10/16/2013 3:29 PM, Anthony Petrov wrote:
>> Hi Oleg,
>>
>> The fix looks good to me. However, I don't recall all details about this
>> machinery, and removing a call to peekEvent() in
>> EventQueue.detachDispatchThread() looks a bit scary.
>>
>> Could Artem or you clarify if AWTAutoShutdown() recreates the EDT if
>> there are still events in the queue, or we simply don't care about them?
>
> EQ.detachDispatchThread() is called in two cases: when we caught
> ThreadDeath or InterruptedExceptions, and when EDT is interrupted (and
> the interrupted flag is not cleared). If this happens, when the current
> AppContext is disposed, we simply don't care if any events are pending.
> If the thread is interrupted for another reason, it will die anyway, but
> the very next incoming event will re-create EDT. In this case, thread
> interruption is considered an application bug.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Artem
>
>> --
>> best regards,
>> Anthony
>>
>> On 10/16/2013 02:31 PM, Oleg Pekhovskiy wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> please review the fix
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bagiras/2228674.1/
>>> for
>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-2228674
>>>
>>> The fix covers two scenarios:
>>> 1. User code calls EventDispatchThread.interrupt() and then
>>> EventDispatchThread.interrupted() which clears interrupted state and
>>> EDT doesn't stop.
>>>
>>> 2. EventDispatchThread.interrupt() is called without clearing the
>>> interrupted state (e.g. invocation of AppContext.dispose()) that makes
>>> EDT terminate.
>>>
>>> The other scenario, in which AppContext.dispose() is called from the
>>> thread other than EDT and after that EventDispatchThread.interrupted()
>>> is called from EDT preventing EDT from termination, is treated like an
>>> architecture bug.
>>>
>>> Some dead code was also removed because detaching of EDT is always
>>> forced.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Oleg