RFR: 8251946: ObservableList.setAll does not conform to specification

[Leon Linhart]

On Tue, 1 Sep 2020 00:23:38 GMT, Kevin Rushforth <kcr at openjdk.org> wrote:

> I don't think the complexity of this proposed fix to `setAll` is warranted. I would prefer a simpler fix that returns
> `false` if both the current list and the new list are empty, and `true` otherwise.

@kevinrushforth Thanks for your feedback! I have just pushed a commit that greatly simplifies `setAll` by returning
early if both lists are empty and continuing with `clear`, `addAll` otherwise.

> If there is a good justification for handling the corner case of calling `setAll` with the same list of elements in
> exactly the same order (and I am not sure that there is), then a better approach might be to do the check before
> actually modifying the list, returning early if the new list and the current list were identical.

Fair point. I'm afraid I don't have any justification other than that, in my opinion, this is a violation of the
method's contract (which is debatable). I suppose it's best to leave it as-is for this case for now.

---

> Unfortunately, I don't see @TheMrMilchmann OCA in the approval queue. Could you please (re)send it to
> Oracle-ca_us at oracle.com? Thanks!

@robilad That's strange. I have sent a mail on Aug 13 and received no indication that it didn't go through (though
neither did I receive an automated confirmation that it arrived - if such a thing is set up). Anyway, I just resent it.

-------------

PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jfx/pull/284