Hi Jay, I think this looks better. +1.
Thanks, Brian On Sep 27, 2016, at 2:36 AM, Jayathirth D V <jayathirth....@oracle.com> wrote: > Hi Brain, > > Thanks for your review. > I was keeping check for abortRequest() right after processImageProgess() call > as I did for all other plugins. > I have moved the complete processImageProgress() check to the end after last > tile is written. Its better if we finish everything related to the write loop > before we call processImageProgress(). > Please find updated webrev for review: > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jdv/8164931/webrev.03/ > > Thanks, > Jay > > From: Brian Burkhalter > Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 4:54 AM > To: Philip Race > Cc: Jayathirth D V; 2d-dev > Subject: Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] [9] RFR JDK-8164931 : Verify if writer.abort() > works properly for all writers in IIOWriteProgressListener. > > My off-list question was this: > > I am probably missing something, but with respect to the TIFF writer, why is > it necessary to move old lines 2607-2610 to new lines 2596-2599? In the old > version, for whatever it’s worth, the tile offset and byte count are written > before the abort, so if one wanted for some reason to read the output image > up to the point of where the write is aborted the last tile would be > accessible whereas in the new code it would not be. > > Thanks, > > Brian > > On Sep 26, 2016, at 4:12 PM, Philip Race <philip.r...@oracle.com> wrote: > > > Seems OK .. modulo Brian's off-list question about TIFF
