Hi Mandy, That's fixed in the JDK-8078335 patch I submitted earlier in the day to build-dev as a RfR. I tested that on Win and Mac.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ptbrunet/JDK-8078335/webrev.00/ Pete On 6/10/15 6:08 PM, Mandy Chung wrote: > Just a quick check, jdk.accessibility is only linked in windows image at the > moment. It is a bug. Are you going to fix that in this changeset? I think > you have to verify this change in windows as well as other platforms. > > Mandy > > >> On Jun 10, 2015, at 3:33 PM, Pete Brunet <peter.bru...@oracle.com> wrote: >> >> Due to some other priorities it's been over 2 months since the last webrev. >> An update is here: >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ptbrunet/JDK-8055160/webrev.03 >> >> The changes from webrev.02 are: >> >> 1) The test was changed to not use the service provider to test the >> activation of the service provider. Instead a file is created when >> Toolkit.getDefaultToolkit activates providers and tested for existence when >> the test runs. >> >> 2) The copyright header in the new jdk.accessibility files were fixed. >> >> Pete >> >> On 4/3/15 3:59 PM, Pete Brunet wrote: >>> Due to the recent push of JDK-8076182 (Open source Java Access Bridge) >>> which exposed some files that were in closed the webrev needs a full >>> re-review. I've also made the changes requested by Mandy. >>> >>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ptbrunet/JDK-8055160/webrev.02/ >>> >>> Pete >>> >>> On 3/23/15 4:41 PM, Mandy Chung wrote: >>>> >>>> On 3/19/2015 6:03 PM, Pete Brunet wrote: >>>>> A new webrev is available at >>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ptbrunet/JDK-8055160/webrev.01/ >>>>> >>>> line 820-821: this comment is incorrect. >>>> >>>> line 831-838: what happens if ServiceConfigurationException thrown or any >>>> exception is thrown by the activate method? This should wrap with >>>> AWTError as I mentioned in my previous review comment. This was hidden >>>> with the test (see below). >>>> >>>> line 891-901: this example may not be necessary as the service loader >>>> documentation should cover it. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> The changes to the tests are: >>>>> - added an unused provider >>>>> - added a test activating two providers >>>>> >>>>> Mandy, Regarding the last bullet I'm not sure I resolved your comment, >>>>> "For the test, since you support multiple providers, perhaps good to add >>>>> one more test case to activate two providers and load two providers but >>>>> only one is activated." If not, please let me know. >>>> Almost. For Foo, Bar providers, their activate method throwing >>>> RuntimeException actually stops loading the second provider. The activate >>>> method could perhaps update some static field defined in the Load class if >>>> it's called (perhaps adding its name) so that you can tell whether the >>>> expected providers are activated. UnusedProvider throwing >>>> RuntimeException is good since you don't expect it's activated. >>>> >>>> Otherwise, looks good. >>>> >>>> Mandy
