SwingWorker.execute() does nothing

[Nigel Wade]

No, "modal dialog" means that the main window will not receive UI
events while it is displayed.

Please provide a reference to back up your assertion. An industry accepted
reference.

Not all of us learn the exact same meanings for a particular bit of
terminology. Particularly since different platforms, languages, and
vendors don't quite agree on these.


It's my thread, and I am no longer deriving any benefit from new posts
to it other than my own.

It is most certainly not your thread. You may have made the first post to begin
the thread but you no more own the thread than you own the Internet. If you
don't understand that then you perhaps need some basic grounding in the
Internet and netiquette.

If you want personal guidance where you /are/ in control then get paid support.

 

[Hendrik Maryns]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Ben Phillips schreef:

Only in the fourth case is anyone likely to notice any problem resulting
from setVisible(true) blocking. Add that the Java Tutorial makes no
mention of this in the section on Swing concurrency, and it's not hard
to understand how this can cause a difficult-to-diagnose problem.

So have you filed a bug at Sun’s with the suggestion to clarify this
point? Here’s the url:
http://developers.sun.com/contact/tutorial_feedback.jsp

H.
- --
Hendrik Maryns
http://tcl.sfs.uni-tuebingen.de/~hendrik/
==================
Ask smart questions, get good answers:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkjt23kACgkQBGFP0CTku6OlFwCgl+CTI9cr+2fI0d1nkafS61w6
/R4AoMiPXRgELz4O6YBYjeDmhOzWtOF9
=aMjN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[Hendrik Maryns]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Ben Phillips schreef:

Yes, I did. I already explained in a previous post exactly what steps I
took,

Maybe
http://ramblings.aaronballman.com/2005/05/Proper_Debugging_Without_a_Debugger.html
will clear you up on this. But really, it is preferable to use a debugger.

Oh, and don’t claim you can’t learn from this thread any more.

H.
- --
Hendrik Maryns
http://tcl.sfs.uni-tuebingen.de/~hendrik/
==================
Ask smart questions, get good answers:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkjt3S0ACgkQBGFP0CTku6OSswCgiWMRhNQLPx8u/Im2+v2ozu7k
S48AoIOUAMKUAp7czY5pP36Z/xIs6y8t
=m/Kn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[Ben Phillips]

No, "modal dialog" means that the main window will not receive UI
events while it is displayed.

[nothing useful, but vaguely accusatory]

Please either post something that helps solve someone's Java problem,
post your own Java problem, or post nothing.

It is most certainly not your thread.

It most certainly is.

[demands money from me]

No.

 

[Ben Phillips]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Ben Phillips schreef:

Yes, I did. I already explained in a previous post exactly what steps I
took,

[accuses me of doing things improperly]

I am well aware of your personal opinion of me and I don't give a shit.
Now please find something more constructive to do.

 

[Nigel Wade]

[nothing useful, but vaguely accusatory]

For reference I requested that you:

"Please provide a reference to back up your assertion. An industry accepted
reference."

But since you have no reference to backup your assertion you instead resort to
replacing the request with lies and innuendo.

Please either post something that helps solve someone's Java problem,
post your own Java problem, or post nothing.

There you go again, telling everyone else what they can and cannot do. But when
someone does that to you scream and shout that they cannot tell you what to do.
What a total hypocrite.

It is most certainly not your thread.

It most certainly is.
Wrong.

[demands money from me]

More lies replacing valid comment.

You have demonstrated yourself to be totally incapable of responsible behaviour
on Usenet.

Good luck with your future ventures on these newsgroups.

PLONK

 

[Ben Phillips]

Ben Phillips wrote:

Lew wrote:
No, "modal dialog" means that the main window will not receive UI
events while it is displayed.
No, "modal dialog" means that nothing happens from the main window while
it is displayed.
No, "modal dialog" means that the main window will not receive UI
events while it is displayed.
[nothing useful, but vaguely accusatory]

[personal attacks]

If you don't have anything constructive to say, then please don't say
anything at all.

There you go again, telling everyone else what they can and cannot do.

No, I didn't. I made a polite request that you abide by this newsgroup's
charter.

[personal attacks]

If you don't have anything constructive to say, then please don't say
anything at all.

It most certainly is.

[personal attacks]

If you don't have anything constructive to say, then please don't say
anything at all.

[demands money from me]

[personal attacks]

If you don't have anything constructive to say, then please don't say
anything at all.

 

[Owen Jacobson]

But this was not obvious on casual inspection. The user's first
encounter with this is going to look like "execute() didn't do
anything". Indeed, did look like that.

#11915: Only Sherlock Holmes can debug the program by pure deduction
from the output. You are not Sherlock Holmes. Run the fucking
debugger already.

-o

 

[Lew]

"The user". Makes it sound so objective and universal instead of a
reference to just one particular user.

For that one user. The great majority of programmers did not run into
this because they operated with a more conventional understanding of
modal dialogs.

#11915: Only Sherlock Holmes can debug the program by pure deduction
from the output.  You are not Sherlock Holmes.  Run the fucking
debugger already.

Mycroft Holmes wouldn't even have needed to see the output.

I was debugging something at work whereby a 'java.util.Calendar'
object was failing to give expected results (date interval
calculations, that sort of thing). It turned out to be in part
because the 'Calendar#clear()' methods do not simply zero out fields
as "the user" might expect, but intentionally leave the object in an
inconsistent state. Much like the issue with Dialog#setVisible()
under discussion here, this is documented in the Javadocs for the
method. Much like the OP's objection, however ill-founded, the
behavior could be seen as non-obvious were it not so thoroughly
documented.

The debugger was invaluable in seeing exactly how the misuse of the
'clear()' methods produced the observed anomalous results. The
Javadocs were essential to understanding why.

It turns out that this is a nearly universal scenario. Javadocs and
the debugger are frequently needed to understand and correctly
implement one's code.

 

[Lew]

Anyway, regardless of whether you agree or disagree, there is little
point in continuing this further. Please do not follow up.

The Dialog#setVisible() docs clearly explain the matter. Five
minutes' reading would have spared you all that agony.

 

[Ben Phillips]

The Dialog#setVisible() docs clearly explain the matter.

But what, pray tell, would have pointed me to Dialog#setVisible() when
the issue appeared to be with SwingWorker#execute()?

(Don't bother replying here. See other posts on this subject, where this
matter has already been debated at length, and reply there if necessary.)

 

[Ben Phillips]

#11915: Only Sherlock Holmes can debug the program by pure deduction
from the output. You are not Sherlock Holmes. Run the fucking
debugger already.

Language, language.

I did add debug statements to the code, as I mentioned previously. I
didn't inspect the (lack of) output but do absolutely nothing else to
investigate the problem, contrary to the impression some people seem to
want to publicly promote for some reason.

And this, too, has already been discussed elsewhere in this thread.

 

[Ben Phillips]

[nothing useful]

What you wrote seems intended to imply something personal. That is not
either constructive or good netiquette. Please refrain from doing so in
the future.

[nothing useful]

What you wrote seems intended to imply something personal. That is not
either constructive or good netiquette. Please refrain from doing so in
the future.

There is no call for this sort of rude and abusive language, and it is
also incorrect to claim that I merely examined the program's behavior
and guessed at a cause. In fact, I inserted debugging statements and
took some other steps, performing several tests, as I explained (and you
ignored) previously.

Please stop promulgating the myth that I did not do any debugging at
all. It is incorrect.

I was debugging something at work whereby a 'java.util.Calendar'
object was failing to give expected results (date interval
calculations, that sort of thing). It turned out to be in part
because the 'Calendar#clear()' methods do not simply zero out fields
as "the user" might expect, but intentionally leave the object in an
inconsistent state. Much like the issue with Dialog#setVisible()
under discussion here, this is documented in the Javadocs for the
method. Much like the OP's objection ... the
behavior could be seen as non-obvious were it not so thoroughly
documented.

I have taken the liberty of eliding a gratuitous personal attack from
the above (said deletion marked by "...") and leaving the actually
important and relevant material unaltered.

Where it becomes clear that berating me for overlooking something
similar in the documentation is wholly unreasonable and gratuitously
hostile behavior, since similar things clearly happen to other people,
including members in good standing here that nobody thinks are idiots.

Moreover, such berations coming from someone to whom a similar incident
has happened are hypocritical in addition to everything else that is
wrong with them.

 

[Ben Phillips]

Says who? You? You don't have the authority to tell me what to do.

I certainly do. This is my thread, and the original problem for which it
was created has been solved. The CURRENT problem in this thread is that
I keep being publicly attacked, called names, and subjected to baseless
insinuations and character assassinations, primarily from you. And that
problem is best solved by you shutting up, not by you posting anything.

Please stop doing so. This thread is closed.

[conspiracy theory]

This is comp.lang.java.programmer, not alt.folklore.urban.

Oh, really? Then name the person I supposedly disrespected.

[does not post any names]

I thought so.

You could have said "I don't think that guy, whoever he is, was
actually a bonehead" and left it at that. But you didn't. You also
opened up on me with both barrels, which is not good. Not good at all.

[nothing important or on-topic in this newsgroup; mainly personal
attacks]

This is comp.lang.java.programmer, not alt.flame.

Pointless, off-topic, and a waste of bandwidth. I wonder if this
behavior violates your service providers' terms of service? Ditto not
respecting a followup-to header

[more of the same, mainly personal attacks]

This is comp.lang.java.programmer, not alt.flame.

I am defending myself and explaining myself.

[personal attacks, this time calling me a liar]

This is comp.lang.java.programmer, not alt.flame.

Which, in turn, stops events from being posted.

[more personal attacks, again calling me a liar]

This is comp.lang.java.programmer, not alt.flame.

No exemption is necessary.

Sure it is. If the modal dialog is running its own event loop that
covers it and its children, its parent won't repaint without doing
something extra. On the other hand, if the original event loop still
runs, user-input events aimed at the parent need to be stopped from
reaching that event loop but repaint events need to be let through.

Either of the two possible implementations requires doing something
about those parent-window repaints.

That is not a crime, whatever you may think. Please stop prosecuting
me for this "crime". Or perhaps I should say PERsecuting me?

[personal attacks]

This is comp.lang.java.programmer, not alt.flame.

In any case, stating that you're inexperienced isn't a criticism at
all.

Coming from you, and in the context of your other recent remarks about
me, it certainly seems intended as one.

It's simply an observation explaining your behavior

My behavior is not a valid topic of public discussion.
1. Only Java is a valid topic of discussion in this newsgroup.
2. I am not a public figure, and non-public figures are not valid topics
of public discussion.

Please leave me alone. I do not want to be hounded like some celebrity.
Celebrities have million-dollar budgets for PR and spin and
image-management, not to mention physical security. Ordinary citizens do
not, and therefore their privacy needs to be respected, including their
right not to be the topic of strangers' public conversations.

[personal attacks]

I am not a failure. You, however, are a failure. You have failed to be
polite. You have failed to observe etiquette or to behave in a civilized
and decent fashion. You have failed to respect other citizens' polite
requests for you to desist in your disruptive and hostile behaviors.
Most of all, you have failed to apologize for your unjustifiable actions.

Also, this is comp.lang.java.programmer, not alt.flame.

I don't think it's too much to ask of someone

I do.

Eh, oh mighty Judge? Your expectations are ridiculously high,

[conspiracy theory stuff]

This is comp.lang.java.programmer, not alt.conspiracy.

agree with your claim that expecting someone to read the documentation
page for the class being discussed

The "class being discussed" originally was SwingWorker and I did read
its documentation.

[personal attacks]

This is comp.lang.java.programmer, not alt.flame.

Sure.

No, actually, I did not.

[personal attacks]

This is comp.lang.java.programmer, not alt.flame.

[blah blah blah ]

Do not mischaracterize what I have written about Java.

Each of us may or may not post according to each of our being "ready to
move on". The difference here is that you've stated that you are in
fact ready to move on, and yet cannot help yourself from replying.

Unfortunately, I am forcibly prevented from moving on by you. You keep
posting, in public, incorrect, misleading, and hostile statements about
me personally that I cannot allow to go unchallenged. These statements
of yours require public correction by me (or retraction by you!) in the
interests of truth and justice.

I'm more than happy to keep replying as the mood suits me.

This is not your private playground. It is a serious-topic Usenet
newsgroup with a charter, and your personal beliefs about me are NOT its
topic.

Please desist from posting off-topic and inflammatory posts to
comp.lang.java.programmer. This is a formal request and a warning. If
you continue to do so, I will forward your subsequent posts to your
internet provider's abuse department for their consideration, including
a reference to the fact that you have been formally requested to stop
salting your posts with large amounts of off-topic flamebait.

If you really want the thread to end, you need do nothing more than just
not reply.

But that would leave people to read uncorrected mistaken information
about me. And that would not be a very good idea for me, now, would it?

[personal attacks]

This is comp.lang.java.programmer, not alt.flame.

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

I certainly do.

No - you don't.

This is my thread,

No. As soon as you posted to usenet you gave everyone
free access to comment on whatever they want.

> and the original problem for which it
was created has been solved. The CURRENT problem in this thread is that
I keep being publicly attacked, called names, and subjected to baseless
insinuations and character assassinations, primarily from you.

That is probably because your behavior is as it is Twerpie.

Arne

 

[Ben Phillips]

Arne Vajhøj wrote:

Eh -- who the hell are you, and why are you butting in? I don't want
your opinion. I certainly don't want you broadcasting a negative opinion
of me to the rest of the world. Go away.

No - you don't.

Yes - I do.

You can't talk about me in public without my permission. I'm not a
celebrity. Take your amateurish attempts at creating your own little
tabloid and shove them. Or at least change the topic to Britney or
someone else that is a bona fide public figure (and has the connections
and budget to put out her own PR spin) and publish somewhere more
appropriate. That means not in comp.lang.java.programmer, which is a
newsgroup for discussing Java programming, not the National Enquirer.

Yes.

As soon as you posted to usenet you gave everyone
free access to comment on whatever they want.

No. You are violating my rights in my own identity. I suppose you also
infringe trademarks, copyrights, and the like online routinely? Go to hell.

and the original problem for which it
was created has been solved. The CURRENT problem in this thread is
that I keep being publicly attacked, called names, and subjected to
baseless insinuations and character assassinations, primarily from you.

[personal attack]

Peter's the twerp, and this is not alt.flame, it is
comp.lang.java.programmer. Peter's behavior, and yours, is inappropriate
for this newsgroup. Go away, the both of you.

 

[Ben Phillips]

If you did, I would be doing what you tell me to do.

I do, but you are breaking the rules. Maybe even the law.
Rule #1 that you're breaking: the topic of this newsgroup is Java.
Rule #2 that you're breaking: non-public figures have the right not to
be publicly discussed without their permission.
Rule #3 that you're breaking: it is not nice to lie about people.
Possible law that you're breaking: tort law, defamation, something of
the sort.
Possible law that you're breaking: theft of services, unauthorized
computer use, similarly (for misappropriating bandwidth, namely that of
everyone who downloads this newsgroup to read about Java and doesn't
want any of your personal attacks and other dreck cluttering up their feed).

You don't own this thread any more than anyone else does.

Yes, I do. I started this thread. That makes it my thread. That is basic
netiquette. But we have already discovered the woeful inadequacy of your
education in netiquette, earlier in this thread, haven't we?

You were the first person in this thread to make any sort of attack

No. The first person in this thread to attack a newsgroup member, or any
specifically-named target, was *attacking* me, so he certainly was not me.

Even if you were right, two wrongs don't make a right.

My posts are only a problem in your own view.

No, your posts are a problem period. In fact they are an affront to the
values of truth and justice. You may have some free speech rights, but
you most certainly do not have the right to lie viciously about another
person in front of a worldwide audience. That's got to be at least a
tort, if not an outright criminal act. And if it continues I'll be
consulting with my lawyer to determine exactly what sort of tort.

You can't expect other people to solve your problems for you.

I can expect them not to gratuitously CAUSE me problems, particularly
not in ways that violate etiquette, violate all standards of common
decency and civilized behavior, and appear to probably violate the law.

I can expect people to actually comport themselves like they are
citizens of a civilized society, in other words, and not barbarians or
hoodlums of some stripe.

And I can expect to have remedy, including legal remedy, against those
that ARE barbarians or hoodlums.

[various personal attacks]

This is not the appropriate forum for your personal attacks and grievances.

Please leave me alone. I do not want to be hounded like some celebrity.

[personal attacks, conspiracy theories, etc.]

This is not the appropriate forum for your personal attacks, nor is it
an appropriate forum for the discussion of conspiracy theories.

How can I "forcibly prevent" you from doing anything?

You can cause my not doing it to have negative consequences for me.

And that, of course, might put you in violation of yet more laws.
Extortion and blackmail related laws, this time. Your using threats and
intimidation to limit my options cannot possibly be legal, given that
you have no legitimate authority over me.

You have complete free will in this situation.

No. I no longer have the option of BOTH ignoring you AND not being
affected by you, because if I ignore you and you keep posting crap like
this, other people will start to believe what you're saying about me,
and then other people will treat me poorly, which will have negative
consequences for me.

Now I have to choose between wasting time replying to your stupid
nonsense and having those negative consequences befall me down the line.

You might as well have threatened to set fire to something of mine if I
didn't pay you protection. I may still technically have a choice, but
that doesn't help me very much in actual practice.

And you are still technically engaged in nasty and possibly criminal
behavior very much like extortion in character.

My statements require no response at all. If they were as untrue as you
say they are, no one else could possibly take them seriously.

If only that were so. But people believe lies and fudged numbers all the
damn time. The economy wouldn't be in its present dire straits if it
weren't so. Nor would Dubya have gotten elected once, let alone twice.

[personal attack]

This is not the appropriate forum for that kind of nonsense.

Please desist from posting off-topic and inflammatory posts to
comp.lang.java.programmer. This is a formal request and a warning. If
you continue to do so, I will forward your subsequent posts to your
internet provider's abuse department for their consideration,
including a reference to the fact that you have been formally
requested to stop salting your posts with large amounts of off-topic
flamebait.

[nothing useful]

Your internet provider has now been notified of your behavior.

Goodbye, Peter Duniho.

That's for you to decide. But as I noted above, if my statements are so
far from the truth as you claim, how could you possibly be concerned
that anyone would take them seriously?

See above re: the economy and Bush getting elected. Like Bush, you're
potentially going to succeed at pulling the wool over others' eyes. And
given the stakes, I cannot permit you to succeed.

This is a free forum.

That's where you're wrong. It's a usenet newsgroup that was created for
a specific purpose, and that has a well-specified charter, a charter
that you are violating with these off-topic and inflammatory posts. You
are an arrogant and narcissistic asshole if you think that that charter
somehow doesn't apply to you because you're "special" or something.

If you expect for there to be no reply to your
own posts, the _only_ way you can ensure that is by not posting.

Not acceptable. If that were true, then there would be no way for me to
ensure that this has the correct outcome, namely that the last word on
the subject is not a bunch of incorrect and damaging lies written by you.

Yet in the interests of justice, I MUST be able to ensure that when the
subject is me, I get to have the last word.

[personal attacks]

YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING INCORRECT STATEMENTS. STOP LYING AND GO AWAY!

But if you aren't willing to let that process take its natural course,
your only option is simply to not post yourself. You don't have any
authority whatsoever to tell others what they may or may not post.

YES. I. DO.

THIS NEWSGROUP'S CHARTER GIVES ME THE AUTHORITY TO DEMAND THAT YOU STOP
MAKING OFF-TOPIC, MALICIOUS-INTENT POSTS TO THIS NEWSGROUP. MY RIGHTS IN
MY OWN IDENTITY GIVE ME THE AUTHORITY TO TERMINATE ANY UNWANTED
CONVERSATION WHOSE SUBJECT IS ME. AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST MY HAVING
STARTED THIS PARTICULAR THREAD GIVES ME THE AUTHORITY TO END THIS
PARTICULAR THREAD.

NOW GO AWAY AND LEAVE ME ALONE!

 

[foo bar baz qux]

Ben Phillips (Paul G Derbyshire) wrote: 
This particular delusion/obsession is a defining characteristic of
Paul G Derbyshire of Ottawa Canada.

For example, as shown in his posting under the name Twisted two years
ago:
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/comp.lang.java.programmer/msg/5c779ccb91b4be50

"in Quake circles they call me Twisted." - PGD's home page.

 

[Ben Phillips]

I do, but you are breaking the rules.

[personal attacks]

This is comp.lang.java.programmer, not alt.flame.

Yes, I do. I started this thread. That makes it my thread. That is
basic netiquette. But we have already discovered the woeful inadequacy
of your education in netiquette, earlier in this thread, haven't we?

[personal attacks]

This is comp.lang.java.programmer, not alt.flame.

No. The first person in this thread to attack a newsgroup member, or
any specifically-named target, was *attacking* me, so he certainly was
not me.

[personal attacks]

This is comp.lang.java.programmer, not alt.flame.

Irrelevant.

No, not irrelevant.

My defense of the person you attacked wasn't a wrong.

Even supposing there was such a defense, your attacks on me ARE a wrong.

No, your posts are a problem period. In fact they are an affront to
the values of truth and justice. You may have some free speech rights,
but you most certainly do not have the right to lie viciously about
another person in front of a worldwide audience.

[personal attacks, including calling me a liar]

This is comp.lang.java.programmer, not alt.flame.

That's got to be at least a tort, if not an outright criminal act. And
if it continues I'll be consulting with my lawyer to determine exactly
what sort of tort.

[personal attacks and veiled threats]

This is comp.lang.java.programmer, not alt.flame.

And that, of course, might put you in violation of yet more laws.
Extortion and blackmail related laws, this time. Your using threats
and intimidation to limit my options cannot possibly be legal, given
that you have no legitimate authority over me.

[yet more personal attacks and veiled threats]

This is comp.lang.java.programmer, not alt.flame.

No. I no longer have the option of BOTH ignoring you AND not being
affected by you, because if I ignore you and you keep posting crap
like this, other people will start to believe what you're saying about
me, and then other people will treat me poorly, which will have
negative consequences for me.

[and of course yet MORE personal attacks!]

This is comp.lang.java.programmer, not alt.flame.

Not acceptable. If that were true, then there would be no way for me
to ensure that this has the correct outcome, namely that the last word
on the subject is not a bunch of incorrect and damaging lies written
by you.

[more veiled threats]

The law might have something to say about your threats, as well as your
defamation.

Says who?

It's simple logic. Beyond you, apparently, but simple logic nonetheless.

 

[Ben Phillips]

What is this? Attribute my messages solely to me, please. What you
quoted was written only by me, Ben Phillips, with no co-authors.

This particular delusion/obsession is a defining characteristic of
Paul G Derbyshire of Ottawa Canada.

This statement is neither about Java nor about anybody posting here,
which makes it DOUBLY off-topic. Furthermore, it appears to be a
personal attack against a target that isn't present to defend himself.

Insulting some poor guy behind his back? How low!

"in Quake circles they call me Twisted." - PGD's home page.

This is not at all relevant to anything that is going on here.