Tania Bento wrote:
Hey,
I have implemented the applyComponentOrientation(ComponentOrientation)
method. This patch fixes a failing mauve test
(gnu/testlet/java/awt/Container/applyComponentOrientation).
Could someone please review my implementation and approve it so that I
can commit it.
Cheers,
Tania
2006-06-27 Tania Bento <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* java/awt/Container.java
(applyComponentOrientation): Implemented method.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Index: java/awt/Container.java
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/classpath/classpath/java/awt/Container.java,v
retrieving revision 1.94
diff -u -r1.94 Container.java
--- java/awt/Container.java 23 Jun 2006 11:00:09 -0000 1.94
+++ java/awt/Container.java 27 Jun 2006 18:23:04 -0000
@@ -1594,7 +1594,16 @@
public void applyComponentOrientation (ComponentOrientation orientation)
{
if (orientation == null)
- throw new NullPointerException ();
+ throw new NullPointerException();
+
+ this.setComponentOrientation(orientation);
+ for (int i = 0; i < this.ncomponents; i++)
+ {
+ component[i].setComponentOrientation(orientation);
+ if (component[i] instanceof Container
+ && ((Container) component[i]).getComponentCount() > 0)
+ component[i].applyComponentOrientation(orientation);
+ }
}
public void addPropertyChangeListener (PropertyChangeListener listener)
Your code looks more or less correct, and if it passes all the tests
then it's certainly a lot better than what we have now (which is totally
broken).
It looks like there might be some redundancy in there though. If one of
the subcomponents is a container, you'll call setComponentOrientation()
and then call applyComponentOrientation() as well, which seems
unnecessary. I haven't tried it, but could the body of the loop be
replaced by:
if (component[i] instanceof Container)
((Container) component[i]).applyComponentOrientation(orientation);
else
component[i].setComponentOrientation(orientation);
That drops the check for the component count, which I think is
unnecessary also...
Regards,
Dave
