<AWT Dev> <Swing Dev> Review request #4: 6852592 (invalidate() must be smarter) - approved

Anthony Petrov Anthony.Petrov at Sun.COM
Thu Oct 8 02:04:46 PDT 2009

On 10/8/2009 12:34 PM Artem Ananiev wrote:
>>>>> Artem, would you agree on placing all calls to the isValid() under 
>>>>> the TreeLock?
>>>> Yes, that would be fine. Have we already introduced a warning about all 
>>> OK, I'll modify the fix for 6887249 accordingly.
>> Well, I revised the code, and it appears that the 'valid' boolean 
>> field is declared volatile. Which basically means that we should only 
>> acquire a lock when we need an atomic "read-then-update" sort of 
>> operation (like validate() or invalidate() do.) When we need to read 
>> the value of this field only w/o subsequent updating it, we don't 
>> actually need any locking at all. So I tend to think that the fix for 
>> 6887249 should modify the Container.validate() method only. What do 
>> you think?
> If isValid() were a final method that just returns a value of 'isValid' 
> field, then yes, we wouldn't have to provide any external 
> synchronization. However, users might want to override isValid(), so I'd 
> better place all the calls to isValid() under the tree lock.

What about the Component.paramString() method then? Couldn't it produce 
some dead-locks while debugging is in progress?

Also, there's a number of isValid() calls in the Swing code (e.g., 
JViewport, BasicTabbedPaneUI, and possibly some more.) Should these be 
modified as well? Alex, what's your opinion?

best regards,

More information about the awt-dev mailing list