On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 00:32:37 GMT, Michael Strauß <mstra...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> Passing a `VetoableListDecorator.subList()` to any of its bulk operations > (`addAll`, `setAll`, `removeAll`, `retainAll`) throws > `ConcurrentModificationException`. The reason is that the > `VetoableListDecorator.modCount` field is incremented before the underlying > list's bulk operation is invoked, which causes a mismatch when the sublist is > interrogated by the bulk operation. > > However, simply updating the `modCount` field _after_ the underlying list was > modified also doesn't work, as in this case listeners can't see the correct > value for `modCount` in their callback. The fix is to make a defensive copy > of the sublist before invoking the underlying list's bulk operation. modules/javafx.base/src/main/java/com/sun/javafx/collections/VetoableListDecorator.java line 391: > 389: > 390: /** > 391: * Returns the specified collection as an unmodifiable list that can > safely be used in all bulk Do you think it might be easier to create a defensive copy **always**? In other words, can we guarantee that it is impossible for the user to create a convoluted code involving maybe two `VetoableListDecorators` where the second one loops back the changes to the first one, however ridiculous that might sound? ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/1679#discussion_r1917493626
