On 9/24/2015 7:42 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
On 24.09.15 18:38, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
On 9/24/2015 4:58 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
The new version of the fix:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~serb/6815345/webrev.05
You assumption can be broken with the next
AWTAccessor.getComponentAccessor().setPeer(jbutton1,
new ButtonPeer() {
...
@Override
public Image createImage(int width, int height) {
return new BufferedImage(width, height,
BufferedImage.TYPE_INT_RGB);
}
...
});
AWTAccessor is unspecified thing, it is a safer version of reflection
which can break lots of things if used incorrectly. This api is for
internal use only.
Maybe it would be better to write about peer=null in the method spec?
peer is a private field it cannot be mentioned in the specification.
Or
not to be that direct and leave the initial phrase mentioning
isHeadless()?
I read this article:
http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/articles/javase/headless-136834.html.
As I understand peer is not strictly disabled for the headless mode,
because some native resources like fonts, printing and images can be
used. In headless mode peer#getImage()/getVolatileImage() can be used to
construct native images, so they must not return null. Maybe
Component#getImage() implementation should simply check for isHeadless()
and return null?
You specified isHeadless()=true that describes the whole environment.
Why isHeadlessInstance()=true is not mentioned? What if the whole
environment is not headless but this component's graphics is headless?
And more global question: Why should we disable the creating of
component image buffer for the headless mode? It could be used for the
same performance reason as in non-headless.
The headless case is covered, heavyweight components cannot be created
in such mode, so only lightweight buttons are checked.
On 24.09.15 15:58, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
On 9/24/2015 3:25 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
On 24.09.15 11:36, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
Hi Sergey,
isHeadless()=true must return null. If so please add the
corresponding
test case. It is not not obvious from the code.
isHeadless()=true is headless mode where the frames are always not
displayable, so everything is similar to the current test except that
in headless the pack() will be throw an exception and second part of
the test in this mode is unnecessary.
Then maybe simply do not call pack() for the headless test?
Okay, let me rephrase what I meant. Since isHeadless()=true case is
mentioned in those 3 specs so explicitly it must be guarantied that
the
specified behavior works for the case as described. I cannot trace
the
result by reading the code of the createImage(), isHeadless()
method is
not even called there. So the test case should be added. Or you could
remove isHeadless() references from the specs. Or write something like
"the result is non-deterministic if isHeadless() is not false..."
--Semyon
On 9/23/2015 9:14 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
Hello.
Please review the fix for jdk9.
The specification is updated as suggested in JDK-6186530 and
JDK-6815345. The test is added to prove that we always return null
when the component is not displayable.
ccc request will be created after the technical review. One
additional
bug filed https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8137047
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-6815345
Webrev can be found at:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~serb/6815345/webrev.04
