RFR: JDK-8290310: ChangeListener events are incorrect or misleading when a nested change occurs [v11]

[Michael Strauß]

On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 12:00:06 GMT, John Hendrikx <jhendrikx at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> This provides and uses a new implementation of `ExpressionHelper`, called `ListenerManager` with improved semantics.
>> 
>> # Behavior
>> 
>> |Listener...|ExpressionHelper|ListenerManager|
>> |---|---|---|
>> |Invocation Order|In order they were registered, invalidation listeners always before change listeners|(unchanged)|
>> |Removal during Notification|All listeners present when notification started are notified, but excluded for any nested changes|Listeners are removed immediately regardless of nesting|
>> |Addition during Notification|Only listeners present when notification started are notified, but included for any nested changes|New listeners are never called during the current notification regardless of nesting|
>> 
>> ## Nested notifications:
>> 
>> | |ExpressionHelper|ListenerManager|
>> |---|---|---|
>> |Type|Depth first (call stack increases for each nested level)|(same)|
>> |# of Calls|Listeners * Depth (using incorrect old values)|Collapses nested changes, skipping non-changes|
>> |Vetoing Possible?|No|Yes|
>> |Old Value correctness|Only for listeners called before listeners making nested changes|Always|
>> 
>> # Performance
>> 
>> |Listener|ExpressionHelper|ListenerManager|
>> |---|---|---|
>> |Addition|Array based, append in empty slot, resize as needed|(same)|
>> |Removal|Array based, shift array, resize as needed|(same)|
>> |Addition during notification|Array is copied, removing collected WeakListeners in the process|Appended when notification finishes|
>> |Removal during notification|As above|Entry is `null`ed (to avoid moving elements in array that is being iterated)|
>> |Notification completion with changes|-|Null entries (and collected WeakListeners) are removed|
>> |Notifying Invalidation Listeners|1 ns each|(same)|
>> |Notifying Change Listeners|1 ns each (*)|2-3 ns each|
>> 
>> (*) a simple for loop is close to optimal, but unfortunately does not provide correct old values
>> 
>> # Memory Use 
>> 
>> Does not include alignment, and assumes a 32-bit VM or one that is using compressed oops.
>> 
>> |Listener|ExpressionHelper|ListenerManager|OldValueCaching ListenerManager|
>> |---|---|---|---|
>> |No Listeners|none|none|none|
>> |Single InvalidationListener|16 bytes overhead|none|none|
>> |Single ChangeListener|20 bytes overhead|none|16 bytes overhead|
>> |Multiple listeners|57 + 4 per listener (excluding unused slots)|57 + 4 per listener (excluding unused slots)|61 + 4 per listener (excluding unused slots)|
>> 
>> # About nested changes
>> 
>> Nested changes are simply changes...
>
> John Hendrikx has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:
> 
>   Fix generic warnings

`ListenerManager` is an obvious improvement, as it fixes incorrect behavior and allows listeners to veto changes. However, the behavior of `ListenerManager` is also an implementation detail and not documented anywhere. This leads me to the following questions:

1. How will users know that they can now do all of the things that were previously broken? Do we need a specification for what is allowed and what's not allowed?
2. Should this behavior be required for all valid `ObservableValue` implementations? (This would render many existing implementations defective.)
3. If `ObservableValue` implementations are not required to replicate the `ListenerManager` behavior, we should probably make it easily discoverable whether any particular implementation (most of them are properties) supports nested changes/vetoing. In most of the public API, there's no obvious way to see (without looking at the source code) whether a property implementation extends one of the `*PropertyBase` classes.

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/1081#issuecomment-2018017130