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.
