commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefano Bagnara <>
Subject Re: [javaflow] wrong assertions in AbstractSimpleTestCase
Date Sat, 13 Sep 2008 14:59:11 GMT
Torsten Curdt ha scritto:
>> Am I totally wrong or they are issues in the test suite?
> Will have a closer look when I am back from vacation. About to walk out 
> the door. Back online in two weeks.

So you should be back, or you should do soon.. Hope you are relaxed 
because I prepared some work for you ;-)

>> Should I open a JIRA for this and attach a patch?
> Sounds good :)

Here we are:

Fix pom dependencies (update asm to latest 2.x and fix jci to a 

wrong expectations in failing junit tests (SimpleTestCase)

synchronized(obj) support is missing (locks are not released when 
suspending resulting in IllegalMonitorExceptions)

>> AFAICT the try/catch test works fine once the testsuite assertions 
>> have been corrected, the only failure is on the synchronized-test.
> Hm

Please, have a look at SANDBOX-254. I hope I understood enough of 
javaflow and that the patch is good!

>> About the synchronized block and the illegal monitor i'm not sure I 
>> understand how it should work.. should javaflow keep the lock open 
>> during the suspension or tracking the locked objects and try to lock 
>> them again on resume?   
> No. The lock needs to be released.

Done in SANDBOX-255. Please review.
I had to introduce a new Frame extension "MonitoringFrame" that also 
take care of tracking monitorenter/monitorexit so in any given frame it 
knows what local variables are locked.
The test included in javaflow and a more advanced test I wrote for it 
seems to work, but I'm sure you can think of better tests that can prove 
limits for this approach.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message