Nice! I will steal it if you don't mind.
Em qua., 7 de ago. de 2024 às 15:55, John Hendrikx <john.hendr...@gmail.com>
escreveu:
> For detecting long running tasks on the FX thread, there are some other
> options which you can do as a user (but perhaps we can support it directly
> within FX). I use this kind of code to detect long running things on the
> FX thread:
>
> /**
>
> * Adds a slow event warning whenever an event takes more than 10 ms to
> process. Note
>
> * that time spent in nested event loops cannot be properly taken into
> account as time
>
> * spent in nested event loops will be part of the event that triggered it
> giving false
>
> * positives. In order for this time to be accurately reflected, the
> methods to enter
>
> * a nested event loop in this class should be used instead of the ones in
> {@link
> Platform}.
>
> *
>
> * @param scene a Scene to which to add the slow event warning detection,
> cannot be null
>
> */
>
> public static void addSlowEventWarning(Scene scene) {
>
> final EventDispatcher eventDispatcher = scene.getEventDispatcher();
>
> scene.setEventDispatcher(new EventDispatcher() {
>
> private ScheduledFuture<StackTraceElement[]> future;
>
> @Override
>
> public Event dispatchEvent(Event event, EventDispatchChain tail) {
>
> if(future != null) {
>
> future.cancel(false);
>
> }
>
> long startTime = System.currentTimeMillis();
>
> TIME_TRACKER.enterNested(startTime); // nesting can happen in two ways,
> an event triggering another event, or when a nested event loop is entered
>
> Event returnedEvent = eventDispatcher.dispatchEvent(event, tail);
>
> long endTime = System.currentTimeMillis();
>
> long timeSpentInNested = TIME_TRACKER.exitNested(endTime);
>
> if(timeSpentInNested > 10) {
>
> long total = endTime - startTime;
>
> LOGGER.warning("Slow Event (self/total: " + timeSpentInNested + "/" +
> total + " ms @ level " + TIME_TRACKER.getCurrentLevel() + "): " + event);
>
> }
>
> return returnedEvent;
>
> }
>
> });
>
> }
>
> --John
>
> On 05/08/2024 17:17, Thiago Milczarek Sayão wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Interesting idea. We have this problem specially when Junior developers
> touch the code.
>
> The other way around would be nice too - if some I/O task executes on the
> FX thread.
>
> This can make the OS think the application hanged and offer to kill it,
> since it won't respond to "pings". And I/O tasks processing time may vary
> between installations. Also causes "white screens" since it blocks painting.
>
> -- Thiago.
>
> Em seg., 5 de ago. de 2024 às 11:59, Kevin Rushforth <
> kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com> escreveu:
>
>> Wouldn't it be better to implement this check in assert to avoid any
>> impact in production?
>>
>>
>> No. Using an assert in a case like this is an anti-pattern. A call to
>> assert in a library such as JavaFX is only appropriate for checking an
>> invariant in internal logic. If we are going to go down this route of doing
>> a thread check when mutating properties of "live" nodes, we will throw the
>> same IllegalStateException that is currently thrown by some methods on
>> Stage and Scene.
>>
>> As for the proposal itself, adding this check is an interesting idea. We
>> considered doing this back in the JDK 7 (JavaFX 2) time frame, but decided
>> not to pursue it then. I think the idea is worth further discussion. I
>> would limit any thread checking to setting the property. It would be too
>> restrictive (and largely unnecessary) to prevent reading a property from
>> the application thread.
>>
>> The things to consider would be:
>>
>> 1. What is the performance hit of doing this check on the setting of
>> every property?
>> 2. What is the effect on bound properties?
>> 3. How intrusive is it in the code?
>> 4. Should we add a property to enable / disable the thread check,
>> possibly a three- or four-valued property (allow|warn|debug?|deny), as was
>> recently done in JEP 471 for sun.misc.Unsafe memory access methods. If so,
>> what should the default be?
>>
>> My quick take is that if this can be done in a minimally intrusive manner
>> with low overhead, we should consider pursing this. As for 4, my preference
>> would be to add a three- or four-valued system property to control the
>> check, with "warn" as the default initially, changing the default to
>> "disallow" in a subsequent version. This would, of course, require a lot of
>> testing.
>>
>> -- Kevin
>>
>>
>> On 8/4/2024 8:40 PM, quizynox wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Wouldn't it be better to implement this check in assert to avoid any
>> impact in production?
>>
>> пн, 5 авг. 2024 г. в 03:30, John Hendrikx <john.hendr...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Hi list,
>>>
>>> I know of quite some bugs and users that have been bitten by the
>>> threading model used by JavaFX. Basically, anything directly or
>>> indirectly linked to an active Scene must be accessed on the FX thread.
>>> However, as FX also allows manipulating nodes and properties before
>>> they're displayed, there can be no "hard" check everywhere to ensure we
>>> are on the FX thread (specifically, in properties).
>>>
>>> Now, I think this situation is annoying, as a simple mistake where a
>>> Platform.runLater wrapper was forgotten usually results in programs
>>> operating mostly flawlessly, but then fail in mysterious and random and
>>> hard to reproduce ways. The blame is often put on FX as the resulting
>>> exceptions will almost never show the user code which was the actual
>>> culprit. It can result in FX being perceived as unstable or buggy.
>>>
>>> So I've been thinking if there isn't something we can do to detect these
>>> bugs originating from user code much earlier, similar to the
>>> `ConcurrentModificationException` the collection classes do when
>>> accessed in nested or concurrent contexts.
>>>
>>> I think it may be possible to have properties check whether they're part
>>> of an active scene without too much of an performance impact, possibly
>>> even behind a switch. It would work like this:
>>>
>>> Properties involved with Nodes will have an associated bean instance
>>> (`getBean`). This is an object, but we could check here if this
>>> instance implements an interface:
>>>
>>> if (getBean() instanceof MayBePartOfSceneGraph x) {
>>> if (x.isPartOfActiveScene() && !isOnFxThread()) {
>>> throw new IllegalStateException("Property must only be
>>> used from the FX Application Thread");
>>> }
>>> }
>>>
>>> This check could be done on every set of the property, and potentially
>>> on every get as well. It should be relatively cheap, but will expose
>>> problematic code patterns at a much earlier stage. There's a chance
>>> that this will "break" some programs that seemed to be behaving
>>> correctly as well, so we may want to put it behind a switch until such
>>> programs (or libraries) can be fixed.
>>>
>>> What do you all think?
>>>
>>> --John
>>>
>>> (*) Names of methods/interfaces are only used for illustration purposes,
>>> we can think of good names if this moves forward.
>>>
>>>
>>
