<Swing Dev> [9] Review Request for 8030702: Deadlock between subclass of AbstractDocument and UndoManager
Alexander Scherbatiy
alexandr.scherbatiy at oracle.com
Fri Sep 18 15:51:13 UTC 2015
On 9/16/2015 5:14 PM, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
>
>
> On 9/16/2015 1:38 PM, Alexander Scherbatiy wrote:
>> On 9/15/2015 10:37 PM, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/15/2015 6:16 PM, Alexander Scherbatiy wrote:
>>>> On 9/11/2015 7:24 PM, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The deadlock that you described exists only because
>>>> AbstractDocument uses locks in the UndoableEdit.undo()/redo() methods.
>>>> Applications that use UndoManager and do not use lock in the
>>>> UndoableEdit.undo()/redo() methods do not have deadlock. They
>>>> worked fine before the fix and can lost data consistency after the
>>>> fix. This is definitely the regression.
>>> You mean scenario when a document that does not support
>>> synchronization but anyway is modified from several threads.
>>> You can expect that such scenario is functional only if such
>>> document is a single atomic field.
>>> I updated the fix
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ssadetsky/8030702/webrev.04/ take it
>>> into account.
>>
>> This looks better. There are just some comments:
>> - The 'inProgress' variable in
>> UndoManager.undo()/redo()/undoOrRedo() methods should have
>> synchronization.
>> Is it possible to move 'if (inProgress)' check into
>> tryUndoOrRedo() method similarly to as it was used in the version 2
>> of the fix?
>> - UndoManager line 489: why not to use the original check from the
>> undoOrRedo() method "if (indexOfNextAdd == edits.size())" to pick up
>> undo or redo action?
>> - UndoManager line 516: An undoable edit can be requested two
>> times for the ANY action because the 'undo' variable can have old
>> value in the second synchronized block.
>> Even the logic is right it is better to take an edit based on
>> the 'action' variable.
>> - UndoManager.undoOrRedo() throws CannotUndoException now instead
>> of CannotRedoException if the redo action is not possible.
>> - It is possible to get rid of the 'done ' variable in
>> UndoManager.tryUndoOrRedo() just simply have an infinity loop.
>> - It is possible to use Boolean values TRUE, FALSE or null for
>> three-state logic. But it is up to you to choose enums or Boolean in
>> the fix.
>>
> I made the changes:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ssadetsky/8030702/webrev.05/ except for
> the last one. Actually triple Boolean logic is a bad style.
There are two main synchronized block in the tryUndoOrRedo()
method: one to look up an undoable edit lock and the second which use
the undoable edit lock.
In the version 02 of the fix the original code from undo() and
redo() methods were moved to these two blocks.
It is not clear why don't you want to do the same (just call
tryUndoOrRedo() with necessary argument for all
UndoManager.undo()/redo()/undoOrRedo() methods) in the latest fix?
Splitting logic like:
-------------------
420 public void undo() throws CannotUndoException {
421 if (!tryUndoOrRedo(Action.UNDO)) {
422 synchronized (this) {
423 super.undo();
424 }
425 }
426 }
-------------------
always have a question that before the fix the super.undo() was
called only for '!inProgress' condition but now the 'inProgress' can be
changed when super.undo() is called.
Thanks,
Alexandr.
>> Thanks,
>> Alexandr.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Alexandr.
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Alexandr.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Alexandr.
>>>>>>>>> Also synchronization is needed to provide coherency with the
>>>>>>>>> state of the document. If those two are not provided the
>>>>>>>>> document can be corrupted. This is enough most usages.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>> Alexandr.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexandr.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexandr.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexandr.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I still think that updating the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UndoableManager for one particular
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AbstarctManager class can be made only after
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> investigation of other possibilities.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You could start with choosing behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which you want to achieve or to keep, like:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - fix the deadlock
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - atomic undo() method
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - serialization
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - immediate roll back action
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - abstract document consistency after
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undo() action
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We need to pay attention to the deadlock at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first of cause.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Serialization and consistency are achieved.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any concrete doubts?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> immediate roll back action -- ?what is that?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "if user starts a long edit operation and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> press undo after that he expects when the long
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> edit is finished it will be rolled back
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> immediately." - what ever does it mean.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Got it. It will work within the fairness. We
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have discussed this allready.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I sacrificed undo/redo call atomicity because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you did not like doc references in undo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manager. I think it is not important for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> most multithreaded undo/redo scenarios.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you give more details about it. Which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doc references do you mean?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your statement a dozen iterations ago was:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "There should be a way to solve these problems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without storing links of external classes inside
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the UndoManager."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess you used "link" term for references. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would recommend to use standard terminology:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reference to the object, dependency on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> class, etc... to avoid misunderstanding.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Usually "link" is in a browser document or a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tool that produces executables after compilation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and look which of the following approaches
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can better solve them (where the fist is more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preferred and the last is less preferred case):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - using UndoManager as is without adding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> links from some specific classes to it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - provide an API for UndoManager to work
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with UndoableEdit-s which have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> synchronization for undo/redo methods
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - adding links of external classes directly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to UndoManager
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you mean under link term? A reference
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or dependency?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are two options. If UndoManager is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> class designed to be only used with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AbstractDocument and placed in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> javax.swing.text package it definitly can have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> special code to handle an abstract document
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instance in a special way.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If UndoManager is a general purpose class,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it looks strange that it handles some special
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> classes in different way as all others. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> usually mean that there are some design
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problems in this class. That is why I just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> asked to look at other ways at first. Only if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other solutions are not suitable it has sense
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to look at the way that you are provided.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Correct. I introduced extra dependency. It is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> optional, but anyway. Of cause there is a design
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem in undo javax.swing.undo package. But I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot rewrite the API because we will get a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compatibility problem then. I mentioned this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> several times in this thread.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We are constrained by compatibility
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requirements. UndoManager is a broadly used
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> class we cannot change the API so drastically.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that you can generalize your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solution just adding an internal interface like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sun.swing.UndoableEditLock.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every UndoableEdit which implements this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interface can provide a lock for its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> synchronization.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If this will work it can be made public in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some days so other application can also have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proper synchronization for their undo/redo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OK. I added it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ssadetsky/8030702/webrev.02/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - We can return a public class that implements
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an internal interface, but we can't expose an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> internal API in the public class definition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> May be it is possible to wrap an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UndoableEdit to the UndoableEditLockSupport in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the UndoableEditEvent or in some other place.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - The similar code is used both in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UndoManager.undo() and redo() methods. Is it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible to move this code to one method that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does undo or redo depending on the given argument?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OK. accepted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ssadetsky/8030702/webrev.03/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - UndoManager.undo/redo methods
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In your previous fix inProgress variable and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the super call were used under the lock. It may
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> leads to some synchronization issues if you decide
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to omit it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - UndoManager.tryUndoOrRedo()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is possible to get rid of 'done' variable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just using an infinity loop and return the exact
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result where the loop is terminated.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AbstractDocument.DefaultDocumentEventUndoableWrapper implements
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both UndoableEdit and UndoableEditLockSupport
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interfaces but UndoableEditLockSupport already
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extends UndoableEdit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - "@since 1.9" javadoc for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DefaultDocumentEventUndoableWrapper.lockEdit()/unlockEdit()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> methods really belongs to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UndoableEditLockSupport methods.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In this case there is no need for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {@inheritDoc} tag.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexandr.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexandr.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexandr.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "adding links of external classes directly to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UndoManager" - Sorry, did not catch what are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you about? Could you clarify?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --Semyon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexandr.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --Semyon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is a mistake in your scenario
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps: fireUndoableEditUpdate() is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> called before the freeing the lock (see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AbstractDocument.handleInsertString()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> method).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yet another argument do not do this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the user experience: if user
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> starts a long edit operation and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> press undo after that he expects
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when the long edit is finished it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will be rolled back immediately.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not true. The first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process adds his undo edit to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UndoManager. While a user trying to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> press undo the second long process
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be started.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is what led to this issue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because when undo is in progress
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> document writing should be allowed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry but I didn't see why is "It not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true"? Then what is your expectation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when you press undo button while edit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not finished yet and there is no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way to abort it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would be good if it works as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you described. But it does not work in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this way with or without your fix.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undo() action has writeLock in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AbstractDocument and because of it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always executed after insert string
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> action.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If a user sees that undo is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available, he can call it but the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second long insertString process can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> start earlier and acquire the writeLock.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is what we are going to fix. And
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this does work after this fix. Undo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> call will be blocked by the long edit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> until the last is done without any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deadlocks. And when edit is done undo()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will acquire the lock and prevent any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new edits until undo() is done. Please
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide a scenario when in your opinion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it does not wok.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The first process starts for 5
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> minutes. When it is finished a user sees
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that he can press undo. While he is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pressing undo button, the second long
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process starts for 10 minutes and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acquire the write lock. The user presses
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undo but he needs to wait 10 more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> minutes until the second process is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finished.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, if two or more threads are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> waiting for a monitor it is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determined which one will get the control
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> after the signal. To order that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ReentrantLock API could be used but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AbstractDocument uses wait/notify for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locking. I think it is not worth to dig
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so deep. It does not cause any issues
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The issue that is considered is "if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user starts a long edit operation and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> press undo after that he expects when the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long edit is finished it will be rolled
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> back immediately."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you are agree that it is not always
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible to do the roll back "immediately"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no point to discussion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree. On that level it is not possible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to predict the order exactly in such
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scenario. But the state of the document
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will be consistent. And it is possible to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have it predictable using lock fairness.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because undo() always get the last edit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyway. If it will be important for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> somebody to preserve the execution order
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on that level of details we will fix it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So undo should be executed after
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the edit is fully performed because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the corresponding UndoableEdit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which undos this edit can be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produced only after the edit is done.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think at first we need to look on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the situation externally rather
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than concentrate on implementation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions like in which class do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> references go.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, please look on this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> situation from a user point of view
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which wants to implement simple Java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Painter.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But could you describe this scenario?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just steps when this simple Painter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fails under the proposed fix?I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note, if this Painter's content is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not an AbstarctDocument it will work
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as before the fix.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any application that uses
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UndoManager and wants to have the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> synchronization (have the same lock
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both for UndoableEdit adding and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undo() method execution) will have the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same deadlock problems.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I have already written:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Consider someone writes Java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Painter application where it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible to draw lines and images and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> uses UndoManager for undo/redo actions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He might want that it was possible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to work with copied images. He can get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lock on ctrl+v action, process an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> image, prepare UndoableEdit and notify
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the UndoManager.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He also can use lock/unlock in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undo action to have a consistent state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the processed image. If someone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calls undo action during the image
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processing and gets a deadlock does it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean that link from Java Painter need
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be added to the UndoManager?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Still do not understand the steps for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your Painter scenario. A link
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (reference?) can be added if it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required to implement functionality. If
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the content is not an AbstarctDocument
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it may be required to implement custom
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UndoManager to support the same behavior.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is the difference between the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AbstractDocument and other classes (in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Swing or user defined)? Do you mean that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the UndoManager is intended only to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used with AbstractDocument and it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shouldn't be used in other cases where
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undo/redo actions are required for non
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> text data?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, undo manager can be used with any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> classes. But since we have it assigned to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AbstarctDocument so often we need to do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our best to make undo manager working
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with it correctly because users do not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like deadlocks usualy. For other classes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we cannot provide synchronization by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> default because there is no API to get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the lock. So it remains up to user how to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide the undo manager synchronization
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the object it controls for other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> classes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What we should do just to understand
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the same deadlock can happen in an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user applications because he wants to use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same synchronization both for the data
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processing and for the undo action. If so,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there should be two investigations:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Is it possible to achieve the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requested goals without changing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UndoManager? In other words The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UndoManager should be used in proper way
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as it is required by its design.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Is it possible to update the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UndoManager API to provide functionality
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that meets new requests?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With API change it is reachable. But I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would preserve the current API as less
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constrained. If we add some methods for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locking we will determine the way how a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user should synchronize his undoable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> content. And user may not need any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> synchronization at all. We should keep in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mind this opportunity as well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only after this discussion there can be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a reason to look to other ways.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexandr.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think our undo manager implementation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do not pretend to be used as the global
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undo manager for big complex applications
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and it cannot cover all possible undo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approaches. But some basic functionality
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be provided and it should be usable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Without edits serialization approach it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not usable for multithreaded use. So
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either we do not pretend to provide a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multithreaded undo manager and remove all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> synchronize keywords from UndoManager
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> class, either we need to support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> serialization approach which does not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cause deadlocks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexandr.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see a contradiction here, could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you point on it more precisely?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexandr.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexandr.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexandr.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --Semyon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexandr.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --Semyon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/30/2015 5:27 PM, Alexander
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scherbatiy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Consider someone writes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Java Painter application where
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is possible to draw lines
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and images and uses
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UndoManager for undo/redo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He might want that it was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible to work with copied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> images. He can get lock on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ctrl+v action, process an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> image, prepare UndoableEdit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and notify the UndoManager.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He also can use lock/unlock
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the undo action to have a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistent state with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processed image. If someone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calls undo action during the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> image processing and gets a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deadlock does it mean that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> link from Java Painter need to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be added to the UndoManager?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexandr.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AbstractDocument violates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UndoManager synchronization
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contract when it both use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lock to work with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UndoManager and in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implemented undo() method.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexandr.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --Semyon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
More information about the swing-dev
mailing list