<Swing Dev> Review request: 6852592 (revalidate() must be smarter)
Anthony Petrov
Anthony.Petrov at Sun.COM
Wed Jul 15 17:49:07 UTC 2009
One more concern that comes to my mind is that the logic stated in the
Swing's method specification is going to be implemented on the AWT's
side, which I don't like much. So definitely we need more opinions on
this proposal.
--
best regards,
Anthony
On 7/15/2009 8:16 PM Alexander Potochkin wrote:
> Hello Anthony
>
>>> Can we do the same for isValidatRoot()?
>> Yes, that is a smaller solution (in terms of the code size),
>
> smaller fix is less error-prone
> and gives better maintainable code for future changes
>
>> though I prefer to minimize calling Swing stuff from AWT code. What do
>> others think?
>
> let's wait for the rest of the team
>
> Thanks
> alexp
>
>>
>> --
>> best regards,
>> Anthony
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> alexp
>>>
>>>> Hello Swing and AWT teams,
>>>>
>>>> This is a fix for the problem discussed recently (see the thread
>>>> "Lw/Hw mixing vs revalidate()/validate()/invalidate()"). The webrev:
>>>>
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~anthony/7-23-invalidate-6852592.0/
>>>>
>>>> Please review.
>>>>
>>>> A couple of notes:
>>>>
>>>> 1. We need to get a CCC approval for the API specification changes.
>>>> This will take some time.
>>>>
>>>> 2. The Container.invalidate() previously had a block of code that
>>>> was executed w/o grabbing the TreeLock (a call to the
>>>> LayoutManager2.invalidateLayout())). Now the code is moved to the
>>>> invalidateImpl() which is always invoked under the TreeLock. This
>>>> doesn't seem to be a problem: actually only the initial call to the
>>>> Container.invalidate() ran the code off the lock. All subsequent
>>>> recursive calls to this method did in fact happen under the lock.
>>>> Therefore I assume that this change is OK.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> best regards,
>>>> Anthony
>>>
>
More information about the swing-dev
mailing list