Looks fine.
On 20.10.15 11:26, Jayathirth D V wrote:
Hello All,
I need one more review. Please review.
Thanks,
Jay
-----Original Message-----
From: Vadim Pakhnushev
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 11:44 AM
To: Jayathirth D V; Sergey Bylokhov; 2d-dev@openjdk.java.net; Philip Race
Subject: Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] <OpenJDK 2D-Dev> Review request for JDK-7182758:
BMPMetadata returns invalid PhysicalPixelSpacing
+1
On 20.10.2015 8:31, Jayathirth D V wrote:
Hi Vadim,
Thanks for throwing light on performance aspect of Boxing & Unboxing in Java.
I have made changes, so that we use Float.compare and then use equality operator to
determine whether expected & returned values are same.
Please find updated Webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rchamyal/jay/7182758/webrev.07/
Please review.
Thanks,
Jay
-----Original Message-----
From: Vadim Pakhnushev
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 4:50 PM
To: Jayathirth D V; Sergey Bylokhov; 2d-dev@openjdk.java.net; Philip
Race
Subject: Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] <OpenJDK 2D-Dev> Review request for
JDK-7182758: BMPMetadata returns invalid PhysicalPixelSpacing
Jay,
What I mean is that you can either declare two floats (lowercase) and then you
need to do if (Float.compare(f1, f2) == 0) Or you declare a Float f1 and then
you can write if (f1.equals(f2)) In the first case there isn't any boxing,
while in the second case second float will be boxed (and unboxed in the equals
method).
So technically Float.compare(f1, f2) == 0 is the most efficient way to compare
two primitive floats, especially given that Float.parseFloat returns primitive
float.
In this particular case simple == would be sufficient though, since one of the
floats is computed at compile time and you know that you won't be comparing
NaN's and expecting that they are equal...
I'm OK with both approaches, but would prefer primitive types and
(Float.compare(f1, f2) == 0).
Thanks,
Vadim
On 19.10.2015 14:04, Jayathirth D V wrote:
Hi Vadim,
I think doing compare and then equals, actually increases the computation we
are doing to check whether expected value and returned value are same.
New approach of directly using equals to compare between expected and returned
value is efficient.
I have made changes you mentioned regarding the typo in "spacing". Please find
updated Webrev :
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rchamyal/jay/7182758/webrev.06/
Please review so that we can push the change.
Thanks,
Jay
-----Original Message-----
From: Vadim Pakhnushev
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 4:03 PM
To: Jayathirth D V; Sergey Bylokhov; 2d-dev@openjdk.java.net; Philip
Race
Subject: Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] <OpenJDK 2D-Dev> Review request for
JDK-7182758: BMPMetadata returns invalid PhysicalPixelSpacing
Hi Jay,
I'm sorry, actually the usage of Float.compare was perfectly fine in your case,
given that you were comparing floats (not Floats).
The thing which caught my eye was the use of Integer boxing as Sergey pointed
out.
Sorry about the confusion.
Thanks,
Vadim
On 19.10.2015 12:04, Jayathirth D V wrote:
Hi Vadim,
Thanks for the review.
I have made suggested changes. Updated Webrev :
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rchamyal/jay/7182758/webrev.05/
Please review.
Thanks,
Jay
-----Original Message-----
From: Vadim Pakhnushev
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2015 8:15 PM
To: Jayathirth D V; Sergey Bylokhov; 2d-dev@openjdk.java.net; Philip
Race
Subject: Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] <OpenJDK 2D-Dev> Review request for
JDK-7182758: BMPMetadata returns invalid PhysicalPixelSpacing
Hi Jay,
What's the point of using Float.compare in the test?
Why not just check if
(horizontalNodeValue.equals(expectedHorizontalValue)) ?
Also please capitalize Attr in the declaration of horizontalattr and
verticalattr.
Thanks,
Vadim
On 16.10.2015 17:36, Jayathirth D V wrote:
Hello All,
Can I get one more review please.
Thanks,
Jay
-----Original Message-----
From: Sergey Bylokhov
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 6:05 PM
To: Jayathirth D V; 2d-dev@openjdk.java.net; Philip Race
Subject: Re: <OpenJDK 2D-Dev> Review request for JDK-7182758:
BMPMetadata returns invalid PhysicalPixelSpacing
The fix looks fine. The test can be improved a little bit to simplify the
int->Integer boxing, but it is not necessary for now.
Thanks.
On 15.10.15 13:17, Jayathirth D V wrote:
Hi Sergey,
I thought you suggested to check for tighter "true" condition instead of
"false" condition.
I have made changes to map horizontalNodeValue and verticalNodeValue to
expected values. Please find updated Webrev link:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rchamyal/jay/7182758/webrev.04/
Please review.
Thanks,
Jay
-----Original Message-----
From: Sergey Bylokhov
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2015 7:34 PM
To: Jayathirth D V; 2d-dev@openjdk.java.net; Philip Race
Subject: Re: <OpenJDK 2D-Dev> Review request for JDK-7182758:
BMPMetadata returns invalid PhysicalPixelSpacing
Hi, Jay.
I suggest to check correct/expected result in the test instead of previous
incorrect zero.
Here, I suggested to check that the resulted horizontalNodeValue and verticalNodeValue
are equal to some expected value. Because if it bigger than zero does not mean it is
correct(note to use Float.compare(f1, f2) instead of "==").
Previously I forgot to mention, that it will be good to name the test by some
useful name instead of some bug number(see examples in javax/imageio/plugins).
On 13.10.15 11:12, Jayathirth D V wrote:
Hello All,
Removed Trailing whitespace present in code.
Please find updated webrev link:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rchamyal/jay/7182758/webrev.02/
Thanks,
Jay
*From:* Jayathirth D V
*Sent:* Monday, October 12, 2015 2:15 PM
*To:* 2d-dev@openjdk.java.net; Philip Race; Sergey Bylokhov
*Subject:* [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] <OpenJDK 2D-Dev> Review request for
JDK-7182758: BMPMetadata returns invalid PhysicalPixelSpacing
Hello All,
Made small change on how we need to represent floating point
constant in
Java(1000.0 -> 1000.0F).
Please find updated Webrev link:
Webrev :
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rchamyal/jay/7182758/webrev.01/
Please review.
Thanks,
Jay
*From:* Jayathirth D V
*Sent:* Thursday, October 08, 2015 2:20 PM
*To:* 2d-dev@openjdk.java.net <mailto:2d-dev@openjdk.java.net>;
Philip Race; Sergey Bylokhov
*Subject:* [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] <OpenJDK 2D-Dev> Review request for
JDK-7182758: BMPMetadata returns invalid PhysicalPixelSpacing
Hello All,
Please review following fix in jdk9:
Bug : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-7182758
Webrev :
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rchamyal/jay/7182758/webrev.00/
Bug : BMPMetadata returns invalid PhysicalPixelSpacing
Root cause : Whenever XPixelsPerMter or YPixelsPerMeter is more
than value 1 in BMP header. Horizontal & Vertical Physical pixel
spacing were returned as zero.
In getStandardDimensionNode()
method of BMPMetadata.java we are dividing 1 by XPixelsPerMter/ YPixelsPerMter.
When
XPixelsPerMter/ YPixelsPerMter
is more than 1. Resulted value is stored without decimal part, which resulted
in zero.
Solution : Made changes to how Horizontal & Vertical Physical
pixel spacing is calculated so that decimal value is not truncated.
Thanks,
Jay
--
Best regards, Sergey.
--
Best regards, Sergey.
--
Best regards, Sergey.
--
Best regards, Sergey.
