<Swing Dev> Review request: 6852592 (revalidate() must be smarter)
Alexander.Potochkin at Sun.COM
Wed Jul 15 09:16:02 PDT 2009
>> 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
> best regards,
>>> 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:
>>> 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,
More information about the swing-dev