Personally, I wouldn't change any native code at this point unless it
was fixing a crash. The review is for 8u40, correct?
Steve
On 2014-07-02, 5:38 PM, Chris Bensen wrote:
I’m not sure about for 8u20. Seems fairly straight forward, and your
Obj-C seems as good as any Obj-C. My only complaint at the moment is
the following:
358 if ([pathParts count] > 2) {
359 // for 3 or more steps, the domain is first.second.third and the keys are
"/first/second/third/", "fourth/", "fifth/"... etc
360 persistentDomain = [NSString stringWithFormat: @"%@.%@.%@",
[pathParts objectAtIndex: 0],
361 [pathParts objectAtIndex: 1], [pathParts
objectAtIndex: 2]];
362
363 [dictPath replaceObjectAtIndex: 0 withObject: [NSString
stringWithFormat:@"/%@/%@/%@", [pathParts objectAtIndex: 0],
364 [pathParts
objectAtIndex: 1], [pathParts objectAtIndex: 2]]];
365 [dictPath removeObjectAtIndex: 2];
366 [dictPath removeObjectAtIndex: 1];
367 } else {
368 // for 1 or two steps, the domain is first.second.third and the keys are "/",
"first/", "second/"
369 persistentDomain = @DEFAULT_JAVA_PREFS_DOMAIN;
370 [dictPath insertObject: @"" atIndex:0];
371 }
what if [pathParts count] is 0? I’d probably do a switch:
switch ([pathParts count]) {
case 0:
//error
return/break;
case 1:
case 2:
368 // for 1 or two steps, the domain is first.second.third and the keys are "/",
"first/", "second/"
369 persistentDomain = @DEFAULT_JAVA_PREFS_DOMAIN;
370 [dictPath insertObject: @"" atIndex:0];
default:
359 // for 3 or more steps, the domain is first.second.third and the keys are
"/first/second/third/", "fourth/", "fifth/"... etc
360 persistentDomain = [NSString stringWithFormat: @"%@.%@.%@",
[pathParts objectAtIndex: 0],
361 [pathParts objectAtIndex: 1], [pathParts
objectAtIndex: 2]];
362
363 [dictPath replaceObjectAtIndex: 0 withObject: [NSString
stringWithFormat:@"/%@/%@/%@", [pathParts objectAtIndex: 0],
364 [pathParts
objectAtIndex: 1], [pathParts objectAtIndex: 2]]];
365 [dictPath removeObjectAtIndex: 2];
366 [dictPath removeObjectAtIndex: 1];
}
Make sense? Clear as mud?
Chris
On Jul 2, 2014, at 2:15 PM, Danno Ferrin <danno.fer...@oracle.com
<mailto:danno.fer...@oracle.com>> wrote:
Chris, Kevin, Steve,
Please review this fix for RT-37788. Since I am not an objective C
any comments are welcome. Also, please consider if this is too much
for an 8u20 fix (the diff is against the current 8u40 codebase).
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~shemnon/RT-37788/webrev.00/
<http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Eshemnon/RT-37788/webrev.00/>
JIRA: https://javafx-jira.kenai.com/browse/RT-37788
—Danno
