[icedtea-web] RFC: Patch to use wait() when waiting for conditions to become true

[Denis Lila]

> I mentioned it in the comments, it is so that
> PluginAppletViewer.waitTillTimeout() could remain private (the above
> is in a
> separate class). I intend to re-factor a lot of that code (already
> started
> working on it yesterday) that will address it there. In the mean time,
> I
> saw no harm in duplicating a few lines of code.

Will you make the factory a static inner class in PAV? I think having
two separate classes in the same file is pretty ugly.

> > > - } catch (InterruptedException ie) {
> > > - // just wait
> > > + int maxTimeToSleep = APPLET_TIMEOUT;
> > > + synchronized(status) {
> > > + while
> > > (!status.get(identifier).equals(PAV_INIT_STATUS.INIT_COMPLETE) &&
> > > + maxTimeToSleep > 0) {
> > > + maxTimeToSleep -= waitTillTimeout(status, maxTimeToSleep);
> >
> > Is status guaranteed to contain a mapping for identifier?
> >
> 
> Yes, it is.

I never liked the existence of this "status" map. We need "applets"
because we have static methods that have to have access to all PAV objects.
status, on the other hand is just a way to associate some data
with each PAV instance, but that's exactly what members are for.
I think statuses should eventually become members, and updateStatus should
stop being static (though not necessarily in this changeset).

One more thing: I think it might be better to introduce 2-3
lock objects just for use with .wait and .notify. I don't think
it's a very good idea to lock on status and applets because we
don't know what kind of internal synchronization they use.
It's generally safer to lock on private objects that only we
have access to (and it also might reduce contention).

Other than these minor things, I can't find anything wrong
with the patch (that is, your new patch, with nano time).

Regards,
Denis.

----- Original Message -----
> * Dr Andrew John Hughes <ahughes at redhat.com> [2011-04-14 07:41]:
> > On 01:56 Thu 14 Apr , Deepak Bhole wrote:
> > > * Deepak Bhole <dbhole at redhat.com> [2011-04-13 20:48]:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Andrew mentioned in one of the previous threads that the current
> > > > plugin
> > > > code waits in an inefficient manner. It wakes up periodically to
> > > > check for conditions, and goes back to sleep, and keeps doing
> > > > that
> > > > cyclically.
> > > >
> > > > The attached patch uses a new function that uses object.wait for
> > > > the object of interest.
>