Hi Jim, Thanks for reviewing and apologies for the delayed response, I
have made sure to set the properties type as String -> Object but mostly
the public constructor(OR) setter method enforces <?, ?> where <Object,
Object> being too loose is guaranteed to not break at runtime but
<String, Object> is brittle and may break at runtime . But as you said
if it is documented then having this hole should be OK. I have updated
the webrev and is available in same location
<https://github.com/srikalyc/JDKfixes/blob/master/java.awt.image.raw_unchecked_webrev.zip>.
--
Thanks
kalyan
On 10/2/13 3:13 PM, Jim Graham wrote:
I'm not the greatest expert on generics (in particular, in terms of
issues of retrofitting generics into existing public code without
breaking compatibility), but I'll note that the properties on an image
were always "documented" to be String->Object, but that was well
before generics and so we just accepted bare hash tables everywhere.
Is it possible to have at least some of the declarations of various
properties objects to be declared as <String, Object> even though we
are loose on the acceptance criteria in various constructors - or
would that just completely break compatibility. I know that we use
type erasure so we would never break binary compatibility, but there
may be some places where we can have them more strongly typed
internally for now, but more accepting at the external API level and
then possibly consider improving the externally-visible typing in
future versions when a source incompatibility is more appropriate?
(I'm asking because I don't understand all of the compatibility issues
that this might cause...)
...jim
On 10/2/13 3:02 AM, Artem Ananiev wrote:
java.awt.image is one of the Java2D packages, so I'm adding 2d-dev to
CC. Please, wait for at least one approval from Java2D team.
For easier review, I put the webrev here:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~art/srikalyc/8025684.00/
It looks fine to me. There is one "unchecked" warning still left, at
BufferedImage.java:645, it can be fixed by introducing a local variable
and @SuppressWarnings("unchecked"), but I'm not sure it's worth doing.
Thanks,
Artem
On 10/2/2013 1:51 AM, srikalyan chandrashekar wrote:
Hi team , could someone review the fix
Bug : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8025684
Webrev :
https://github.com/srikalyc/JDKfixes/blob/master/java.awt.image.raw_unchecked_webrev.zip
Fix : Raw and unchecked warnings in AWT image classes fixed
