Hi, Manajit.
I just recognize that this test is a updated version of the closed test. But it 
works differently. The updated test passed to quickly.
  
----- sergey.bylok...@oracle.com wrote:

> Looks fine.
> 
> On 03.08.2017 6:27, Manajit Halder wrote:
> > Hi Sergey,
> > 
> > Added the test case from the previous iteration of the fix. Please 
> > review the webrev:
> > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mhalder/8136999/webrev.01/
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Manajit
> > 
> >> On 26-Jul-2017, at 10:32 PM, Sergey Bylokhov 
> >> <sergey.bylok...@oracle.com <mailto:sergey.bylok...@oracle.com>>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi, Manajit.
> >> Can you please add a test from the previous iteration of the fix:
> >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~alexsch/8136999/webrev.00
> >>
> >> -----manajit.hal...@oracle.com
> <mailto:manajit.hal...@oracle.com>wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Hi All,
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Kindly review the fix for JDK10.
> >> >
> >> >Bug:
> >> >https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8136999
> >> >
> >> >Webrev:
> >> >http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mhalder/8136999/webrev.00/
> >> >
> >> >Fix:
> >> >The flushEvent method is not required as mentioned in the previous
> 
> >> review mail 
> >>
> (http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/awt-dev/2015-October/010201.html).
> >> >flushEvent related functionalities were modified while fixing
> issue 
> >> JDK-8006634 <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8006634>  
> >> and hence deleted flushEvent method.
> >> >
> >> >Regards,
> >> >Manajit
> > 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Best regards, Sergey.

Reply via email to