Am Sonntag, den 25.09.2005, 19:30 +0200 schrieb Mark Wielaard:
> Hi Roman,
>
> On Thu, 2005-09-22 at 16:13 +0200, Roman Kennke wrote:
> > + /**
> > + * Performs normal painting without double buffering.
> > + *
> > + * @param r the area to be repainted
> > + */
> > + void paintSimple(Rectangle r)
> > + {
> > + Graphics g = getGraphics();
> > + Graphics g2 = getComponentGraphics(g);
> > + paint(g2);
> > + g2.dispose();
> > + g2.dispose();
> > }
>
> You are disposing g2 twice, but not g.This is already fixed in one of the followup patches. > Is there actually a reason to explicitly dispose() of an Graphics > object? Why don't we just let Graphics.finalize() handle it? Yeah. 1. I would consider it good style to dispose a Graphics in the same method where you aquire a Graphics object (don't dispose Graphics that you get as parameter). 2. The specs seem to implicate that finalize is not very reliable. /Roman
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
_______________________________________________ Classpath-patches mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath-patches
