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 68636 - Xml layer view - rename blocks awt-event-queue
Summary: Xml layer view - rename blocks awt-event-queue
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 72541
Alias: None
Product: apisupport
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Project (show other bugs)
Version: 5.x
Hardware: All All
: P4 blocker (vote)
Assignee: Jesse Glick
URL:
Keywords: PERFORMANCE
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2005-11-14 11:00 UTC by pzajac
Modified: 2008-06-19 23:08 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Issue Type: DEFECT
Exception Reporter:

Attachments
Thread dump (6.65 KB, text/plain)
2005-11-14 11:01 UTC, pzajac 		Details
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description pzajac 2005-11-14 11:00:05 UTC 
200511131800
For example I tried to rename "Editor/css" folder to "Editor/css2" folder. It
blocked awt-event-queue for few second.
Comment 1 pzajac 2005-11-14 11:01:00 UTC 
Created attachment 26911 [details]
Thread dump
Comment 2 Jesse Glick 2005-12-11 00:26:29 UTC 
Probably with atomic actions - Rename action wraps layer folder's rename in an
atomic action. So

1. Atomic action starts.

2. Layer folder is renamed.

3. LU.CI.saving -> true

4. New layer is written to disk.

5. File change for layer.xml deferred, since inside atomic action.

6. LU.CI.saving -> false

7. Atomic action finishes.

8. File change for layer.xml delivered.

9. Document reparsed from disk unnecessarily.

I don't really know how to solve this, and any changes in this area would likely
be risking. Deferring.
Comment 3 Jesse Glick 2005-12-11 00:27:32 UTC 
Seems not very high priority to me. A few seconds of EQ blockage is not so
terrible; and it is unlikely that many people will frequently be renaming layer
folders.
Comment 4 Jesse Glick 2008-06-19 23:08:12 UTC 
No plans to fix in current impl.

*** This issue has been marked as a duplicate of 72541 ***