<Swing Dev> [9] Review request for JDK-8158325: [macosx]Memory leak in com.apple.laf.ScreenMenu
Alexander Zvegintsev
alexander.zvegintsev at oracle.com
Thu Jun 30 07:34:04 UTC 2016
The fix looks good to me.
On 6/30/16 9:07 AM, Alexandr Scherbatiy wrote:
> On 6/29/2016 10:08 PM, Robin Stevens wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> attached you find an updated webrev which addresses the comments:
>>
>> - no custom remove implementation, but instead call fItems.clear()
>> after calling removeAll()
>> - Attached the container listener to the popupmenu
>> - Used the key instead of the value to remove items from the hashmap
>> - The test is now marked to run only on OS X
>>
> The uploaded webrev:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~alexsch/robin.stevens/8158325/webrev.01
>
> Thanks,
> Alexandr.
>>
>> Robin
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 2:01 PM, Alexander Zvegintsev
>> <alexander.zvegintsev at oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>> You should create the diff against the repository. This will
>> allow to test your fix without applying a bunch of patches.
>>
>> --
>> Thanks,
>> Alexander.
>>
>> On 06/29/2016 02:49 PM, Robin Stevens wrote:
>>> 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).
>>>> 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
>>>> .
>>>> 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> 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/20160630/3c048b04/attachment.html>
More information about the swing-dev
mailing list