This Bugzilla instance is a read-only archive of historic NetBeans bug reports. To report a bug in NetBeans please follow the project's instructions for reporting issues.

Bug 28159

Summary: Deadlock when creating a new Java file
Product: contrib Reporter: Petr Jiricka <pjiricka>
Component: LooksAssignee: Petr Hrebejk <phrebejk>
Status: VERIFIED FIXED    
Severity: blocker Keywords: THREAD
Priority: P1    
Version: 3.x   
Hardware: PC   
OS: Windows ME/2000   
Issue Type: DEFECT Exception Reporter:
Attachments: The thread dump with the deadlock
patch for CompositeLook.java

Description Petr Jiricka 2002-10-22 09:33:01 UTC 
Projects branch:

This deadlock happened to me on Windows 2000 in JDK 
1.4.0_01-b03 on my private build of sources checked out on 
Oct 17.

1. In the sample project, I expanded the sources node.
2. Under examples, I created a new Java file from the 
Empty template.
3. The deadlock in the attachment occurred.
Comment 1 Petr Jiricka 2002-10-22 09:37:27 UTC 
Created attachment 7732 [details]
The thread dump with the deadlock
Comment 2 Vitezslav Stejskal 2002-10-22 11:20:42 UTC 
It seems that deadlock occured between DecoratorSelector and
CompositeLook. CompositeLook uses DO.getNodeDelegate to get annotated
name of the FileObject defining its contents, this name is then used
as a displayName of CompositeLook. Using DO.getNodeDelegate is
overkill, moreover it takes o.o.util.Mutex lock. I am going to attach
patch for it, please review and commit.
Comment 3 Vitezslav Stejskal 2002-10-22 11:21:58 UTC 
Created attachment 7733 [details]
patch for CompositeLook.java
Comment 4 Jiri Kovalsky 2002-11-27 13:17:40 UTC 
Could you Petre take a look at the attached patch ? All in all, this
is P1.
Comment 5 Petr Jiricka 2002-11-28 14:04:25 UTC 
Well, the patch looks ok to me, however I don't feel I am 
the right person to ask. I don't understand looks. For 
example, I don't know at all what the getDisplayName() 
method is for. So I suggest someone else also looks at the 
fix.
Comment 6 Petr Hrebejk 2002-12-08 17:42:54 UTC 
Looks like someone alredy applyied the patch, thus marking as fixed. 
(Thanks Vita)
Comment 7 Petr Jiricka 2003-07-09 16:48:50 UTC 
Verified.