Hi 2D folks any 2nd take on this for approval? --- Thanks kalyan
On 10/15/2013 3:23 AM, Artem Ananiev wrote: > > On 10/15/2013 12:46 AM, srikalyan chandrashekar wrote: >> 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>. >> > > The new version is uploaded here: > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~art/srikalyc/8025684.02/ > > Thanks, > > Artem > >> -- >> 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 >>>>> >>
