On Thu, 11 Mar 2021 07:34:29 GMT, Ambarish Rapte <ara...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> modules/javafx.graphics/src/main/java/com/sun/prism/es2/X11GLFactory.java >> line 171: >> >>> 169: deviceDetails.put("XVisualID", >>> Long.valueOf(nGetVisualID(nativeCtxInfo))); >>> 170: deviceDetails.put("XDisplay", >>> Long.valueOf(nGetDisplay(nativeCtxInfo))); >>> 171: deviceDetails.put("XScreenID", >>> Integer.valueOf(nGetDefaultScreen(nativeCtxInfo))); >> >> Autobox? > > I think the statements look more readable the way they are. > The type of LHS of the expression is Object, so a reader will have to find > return type of those methods to understand what type of Object gets created. > I think such calls which use a return value from a method should use explicit > calls. > But then on other side in case if return type of the method is changed, then > we need to also change these explicit calls. > Sounds like a decision to make for other time. What do you think ? The real problem here is not finding out what the return type is, it's that the `deviceDetails` type is a raw `HashMap` so it's not clear what type should be put in the map. If it were `HashMap<Object, Object>` then the reader should not care what gets put into the map since it's an `Object`. It's fine as is anyway. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jfx/pull/423