commons-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Henri Yandell (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] Commented: (COLLECTIONS-111) IteratorChain skips over elements in iterator
Date Tue, 11 Sep 2007 17:57:32 GMT


Henri Yandell commented on COLLECTIONS-111:

The first block of code is a bit of protection that stops an IndexOutOfBoundsException. It's
not possible to enter updateIteratorChain() without lockChain() having been called, so it's
not possible for the iterator to be empty and then get values later. This initial bit of code
looks good.

Then a return statement is removed. With the return statement, an empty iterator would be
considered to be full, so removing this return statement makes sense. It does mean that there's
a new code path to go through the first time. Jonathan does report that the first element
doesn't return, which might point to this return statement; but he also reports other later
elements are missing which doesn't. 

The following changes are one change. An if statement is rolled into the while loop below
it. It's the biggest change, but it seems to be fine. 

The new code path means that:

a) An empty iterator is passed down to the while loop. Its hasNext() is false and currentIteratorIndex
(=0) is not less than size-1 (=-1). So the while loop is not entered and the method returns
as before.

b) The first iterator in the array is at its beginning. In Jonthan's case its hasNext is true,
and currentIteratorIndex (=0) is not less than size-1 (0). The while loop is not entered and
the method returns as before. The alternative to Jonathan's case would be an empty iterator,
but that would also not enter the while loop due to the second clause.

So none of the code changes would appear to cause any problems, and things would appear to
be thread safe because they are read-only at that time - unless more than one thing is reading
the iterator.

That's the only explanation I can see - that there was another thread that was sometimes reading
the other iterator. It doesn't match to Jonathan's report of 2.1.1 being fine and 3.1 being

I've been looking at trunk and not 3.1. Looking at the diff between 3.1 and trunk, the only
change has been protection in remove() against calling updateCurrentIterator() unless the
currentIterator is null. As the report only has the one iterator in the chain, I can't see
this bug leading to elements vanishing. updateIteratorChain doesn't do element moving, just

So... I'm all for closing this as Cannot Reproduce. 

> IteratorChain skips over elements in iterator
> ---------------------------------------------
>                 Key: COLLECTIONS-111
>                 URL:
>             Project: Commons Collections
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: Iterator
>    Affects Versions: 3.1
>         Environment: Operating System: Windows XP
> Platform: PC
>            Reporter: Jonathan Giles
>             Fix For: 3.3
> Hi there,
> When using the IteratorChain class to add multiple iterators, it appears that
> using itChain.hasNext() and skips a number of elements in the
> iterator at each step.
> Given a single iterator of 7 elements, and using the following code:
> private IteratorChain buildIterator() {
> // this iterator contains the children of the current object only
> Iterator it = getChildren(p);
> // we use an IteratorChain to add multiple iterators together without the
> overhead of copying
> IteratorChain itChain = new IteratorChain(it);
> return itChain;
> }
> and then simply
> IteratorChain it = treeModel.getAllTreeNodes(obj);
> // FIXME this only prints one or two of the results, which is a bug!
> while (it.hasNext())
>     System.out.println(": " +;
> I put in 7 elements, but only get 2 out - the 2nd and the last elements. It
> appears that through my debugging that the nextClause variable is updated even
> when the hasNext() function is called.
> Also, if I put 7 system.out.println statements, all elements are printed as normal.

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.

View raw message