Re: [9] Review request: 8180040: Exclude jdk.packager module from unified JDK 9 docs

2017-05-09 Thread Mandy Chung 

> On May 9, 2017, at 6:52 PM, Kevin Rushforth  
> wrote:
> 
> Thanks for the review. We currently don't use package-info.java anywhere, but 
> I can file a separate bug for converting all of our package.html to 
> package-info.java.

That’d be good.

> I can add the the missing copyright headers at the same time.
> 

OK.

No need for an updated webrev.

Mandy

> -- Kevin
> 
> 
> Mandy Chung wrote:
>> 
>>> On May 9, 2017, at 6:08 PM, Kevin Rushforth  
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Please review the following to exclude jdk.packager module from the JDK 
>>> docs bundle:
>>> 
>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8180040 
>>> 
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8180040/webrev.00/ 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I also added a missing package description for the jdk.packager.services 
>>> package (in the jdk.packager.services module), since the 
>>> jdk.packager.services module will remain in the docs.
>>> 
>> 
>> I suggest to convert package.html to package-info.java.  Also need copyright 
>> header.
>> 
>> build.properties change looks fine.
>> 
>> Mandy

Re: [9] Review request: 8180040: Exclude jdk.packager module from unified JDK 9 docs

2017-05-09 Thread Kevin Rushforth 
Thanks for the review. We currently don't use package-info.java 
anywhere, but I can file a separate bug for converting all of our 
package.html to package-info.java. I can add the the missing copyright 
headers at the same time.


-- Kevin


Mandy Chung wrote:

On May 9, 2017, at 6:08 PM, Kevin Rushforth  wrote:

Please review the following to exclude jdk.packager module from the JDK docs 
bundle:

https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8180040
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8180040/webrev.00/

I also added a missing package description for the jdk.packager.services 
package (in the jdk.packager.services module), since the jdk.packager.services 
module will remain in the docs.



I suggest to convert package.html to package-info.java.  Also need copyright 
header.

build.properties change looks fine.

Mandy

Re: [9] Review request: 8180040: Exclude jdk.packager module from unified JDK 9 docs

2017-05-09 Thread Mandy Chung 

> On May 9, 2017, at 6:08 PM, Kevin Rushforth  
> wrote:
> 
> Please review the following to exclude jdk.packager module from the JDK docs 
> bundle:
> 
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8180040
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8180040/webrev.00/
> 
> I also added a missing package description for the jdk.packager.services 
> package (in the jdk.packager.services module), since the 
> jdk.packager.services module will remain in the docs.

I suggest to convert package.html to package-info.java.  Also need copyright 
header.

build.properties change looks fine.

Mandy

Re: [9] Review request: 8180040: Exclude jdk.packager module from unified JDK 9 docs

2017-05-09 Thread Erik Joelsson 

Looks ok to me.

/Erik


On 2017-05-09 18:08, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
Please review the following to exclude jdk.packager module from the 
JDK docs bundle:


https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8180040
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8180040/webrev.00/

I also added a missing package description for the 
jdk.packager.services package (in the jdk.packager.services module), 
since the jdk.packager.services module will remain in the docs.


-- Kevin

Re: [9] Review request: 8177566: FX user module gets IllegalAccessException from sun.reflect.misc.Trampoline

2017-05-09 Thread Kevin Rushforth 

inline

Peter Levart wrote:

Hi Kevin,

On 05/02/2017 02:21 AM, Kevin Rushforth wrote:

This review is being cross-posted to both openjfx-dev and jigsaw-dev.

Please review the proposed fix for:

https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8177566
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8177566/webrev.00/complete-webrev/

Details of the fix as well as notes to reviewers are in the bug 
report [1] (e.g., I've also generated separate webrevs for the fix 
itself, the doc changes, and the test changes).


-- Kevin

[1] 
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8177566?focusedCommentId=14074243=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-14074243




I think it is very unusual to handle unqualified exports as something 
special, different from qualified exports. I know what the reasoning 
is: if a package is exported unconditionally (to everyone) then it is 
part of public API and so the trampoline may access members of that 
package on behalf of anyone. But such reasoning is just a consequence 
of the lack of a finer-grained (per-module) access support in JavaFX. 
I know it is too much to ask for JDK 9, but could JavaFX in say JDK 
10, given current API, somehow determine on whose behalf it is making 
the trampoline access? If it could, then the trampoline could allow 
qualified exports to be effective too.


The primary remedy is for the application to use a qualified "opens" to 
the appropriate javafx module. For example, to allow the 
JavaBeanXXXProperty classes the ability to access a class in your 
module, your module needs to "opens my.package to javafx.base". The only 
difference between what you propose and what was implemented is 
qualified exports versus qualified opens, which really shouldn't be too 
much of an issue for applications (such applications already need to use 
qualified opens to allow access to their FXML controller class).


The only reason we mention unconditional exports as an alternative is 
for the benefit of application that happen to already have their package 
exported unconditionally.


-- Kevin



Regards, Peter

[10] Review request: JDK-8179946 - Objects are not rendered for certain rotation angle and cache hint combinations

2017-05-09 Thread Jim Graham 

JBS: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8179946
webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~flar/JDK-8179946/webrev.00/

This should get back-ported to 9 as well, as soon as makes sense...

...jim

[9] Review request: 8180040: Exclude jdk.packager module from unified JDK 9 docs

2017-05-09 Thread Kevin Rushforth 
Please review the following to exclude jdk.packager module from the JDK 
docs bundle:


https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8180040
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8180040/webrev.00/

I also added a missing package description for the jdk.packager.services 
package (in the jdk.packager.services module), since the 
jdk.packager.services module will remain in the docs.


-- Kevin

8089230: Mac: Window.maximize(false) won't restore a window into its original rectangle

2017-05-09 Thread Avik Niyogi 


> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: Avik Niyogi 
> Subject: 8089230: Mac: Window.maximize(false) won't restore a window into its 
> original rectangle
> Date: 9 May 2017 2:35:39 pm IST
> To: David Hill , Kevin Rushforth 
> , Manajit Halder 
> Cc: Praveen Srivastava 
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> Kindly review the fix for JDK10. 
> 
> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8089230 
> 
> 
> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aniyogi/8089230/webrev.00/ 
> 
> 
> Issue: The test case 
> tests/system/src/test/java/test/javafx/stage/RestoreStagePositionTest.java 
> fails with wrong window position
> 
> Cause:  setFlipFrame method in native Obj C code was implemented wrongly for 
> restorePreZoomedRect method calling method.
> 
> Fix: Significant native changes were implemented to incorporate these changes 
> for this particular case.
> 
> With Regards,
> Avik Niyogi