<Swing Dev> [9] Review request for JDK-8158325: [macosx]Memory leak in com.apple.laf.ScreenMenu

[Robin Stevens]

Hello Alexander,

just one last question. I assume I need to send a new webrev . But do I
have to create one which contains the diff compared to the current tip of
the repository, or do I need to create one which contains the diff compared
to my previous patch ?

Robin

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Alexander Zvegintsev <
alexander.zvegintsev at oracle.com> wrote:

> Hello Robin,
>
> Actually I missed your review, when I've posted mine.
>
> I think that we should proceed with your review as it was the first one.
> So please disregard my review request.
>
> On 6/29/16 12:40 PM, Robin Stevens wrote:
>
> Hello Alexandr, Semyon,
>
> 2 reviews of this proposed path have happened.
>
> One from Alexandr Scherbatiy who stated that the fix looked good.
> One from Alexander Zvegintsev who had some comments, and immediately
> mailed his own review with a modified version of my proposed patch (see
> <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/swing-dev/2016-June/006196.html>
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/swing-dev/2016-June/006196.html).
> His patch is based on my patch, but implements the comments he had.
>
> I am not sure what I need to do now.
> I can address his comments, but then I would end up with the same patch as
> he proposed in
> <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/swing-dev/2016-June/006196.html>
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/swing-dev/2016-June/006196.html .
> Please let me know how to proceed with this.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Robin
>
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 11:16 AM, Alexandr Scherbatiy <
> <alexandr.scherbatiy at oracle.com>alexandr.scherbatiy at oracle.com> wrote:
>
>> On 6/29/2016 11:43 AM, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
>>
>> It looks like that fix is posted twice for the same issue...
>>
>> Which one is the correct one?
>>
>>   It should be the first contributed fix. We are just waiting fro the
>> response from the fix contributor:
>>
>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/swing-dev/2016-June/006200.html
>>
>>   Thanks,
>>   Alexandr.
>>
>> --Semyon
>>
>> On 6/23/2016 7:08 PM, Robin Stevens wrote:
>>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> attached is a webrev for issue JDK-8158325 Memory leak in
>> com.apple.laf.ScreenMenu: removed JMenuItems are still referenced.
>>
>> Patch contains a test case which reveals the bug, and a fix.
>>
>> There were a few issues with the ScreenMenu class:
>>
>> - The ContainerListener was attached to the JMenu and not to the JMenu#getPopupMenu.
>> The JMenu itself does not fire any ContainerEvents, but
>>
>> the popup does. As a result, the cleanup code in ScreenMenu was never
>> triggered. The patch fixes this by attaching the ContainerListener to
>> the popup menu.
>>
>> Note that the ScreenMenu class also attaches a ComponentListener to the JMenu.
>> I had no idea whether that one must be attached to the popup menu as well,
>> so I did not change it.
>>
>> - The cleanup code was not triggered when removeAll() was called from the updateItems
>> method. I fixed this by overriding the remove(int) method, and
>>
>> putting the cleanup code in that method. An alternative here would be to
>> not override the remove(int) method, but instead call fItems.clear()
>> after calling removeAll() . However, overriding the remove(int) method
>> sounded more robust to me.
>>
>> - The cleanup code was incorrect. It tried to remove an item from fItems
>> (a map) by calling remove with the value instead of the key. Now the
>> remove is called with the key. Because the cleanup code has been moved,
>> this required me to loop over the map as I have no direct access to the
>> key in the
>>
>> remove(int) method
>>
>> - The test can be run on all platforms, although it was written for an OS
>> X specific bug. As it can run on all platforms, I did not disable it on
>> non OS X platforms. Let me know if I need to adjust this.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Robin
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/swing-dev/attachments/20160629/4a5fa533/attachment.html>