Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] [9] RFR JDK-8169725: cannot use TIFFField(TIFFTag tag, int value) for TIFF_LONG values greater than Integer.MAX_VALUE

2016-12-07 Thread Philip Race
+1 -phil. On 12/7/16, 5:34 PM, Brian Burkhalter wrote: The patch has been updated as suggested and the existing test has been modified to verify the changes: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bpb/8169725/webrev.02/ Thanks, Brian On Dec 7, 2016, at 5:09 PM, Brian

Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] [9] RFR JDK-8169725: cannot use TIFFField(TIFFTag tag, int value) for TIFF_LONG values greater than Integer.MAX_VALUE

2016-12-07 Thread Brian Burkhalter
The patch has been updated as suggested and the existing test has been modified to verify the changes: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bpb/8169725/webrev.02/ Thanks, Brian On Dec 7, 2016, at 5:09 PM, Brian Burkhalter wrote: > I was expecting that; will update. > >

Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] [9] RFR JDK-8169725: cannot use TIFFField(TIFFTag tag, int value) for TIFF_LONG values greater than Integer.MAX_VALUE

2016-12-07 Thread Brian Burkhalter
I was expecting that; will update. Thanks, Brian On Dec 7, 2016, at 5:03 PM, Philip Race wrote: > Looks OK except for the same question about using 0x. > > -phil. > > On 12/6/16, 12:31 PM, Brian Burkhalter wrote: >> Continuing from thread [1]. >> >> Pursuant

Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] [9] RFR JDK-8169728: Missing sign checks in TIFFField(TIFFTag tag, int type, int count, Object data) for TIFFTag.TIFF_LONG

2016-12-07 Thread Brian Burkhalter
No particular reason. I suspect you are correct that it is more recognizable so I’ll change it. Thanks, Brian On Dec 7, 2016, at 5:01 PM, Philip Race wrote: > One "PS" > why say 4294967295 in the spec where 0x is probably > more immediately to most

Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] [9] RFR JDK-8169725: cannot use TIFFField(TIFFTag tag, int value) for TIFF_LONG values greater than Integer.MAX_VALUE

2016-12-07 Thread Philip Race
Looks OK except for the same question about using 0x. -phil. On 12/6/16, 12:31 PM, Brian Burkhalter wrote: Continuing from thread [1]. Pursuant to comments from the CCC, the patch [2] has been updated. The changes with respect to the previous version of the patch [3] are to clarify

Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] [9] RFR JDK-8169728: Missing sign checks in TIFFField(TIFFTag tag, int type, int count, Object data) for TIFFTag.TIFF_LONG

2016-12-07 Thread Philip Race
One "PS" why say 4294967295 in the spec where 0x is probably more immediately to most programmers that it is not a random choice of number ? -phil On 12/7/16, 4:56 PM, Philip Race wrote: +1 Yes, it needs a CCC update. A quick "bug fix" one. -phil. On 12/6/16, 2:03 PM, Brian

Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] [9] RFR JDK-8169728: Missing sign checks in TIFFField(TIFFTag tag, int type, int count, Object data) for TIFFTag.TIFF_LONG

2016-12-07 Thread Philip Race
+1 Yes, it needs a CCC update. A quick "bug fix" one. -phil. On 12/6/16, 2:03 PM, Brian Burkhalter wrote: Please review at your convenience: Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8169728 Patch: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bpb/8169728/webrev.00/ To the primary constructor

[OpenJDK 2D-Dev] OpenJDK 2D-Dev] [9] RFR JDK-8154058: [TIFF] ignoreMetadata parameter of TIFFImageReader's setInput() method affects TIFFImageReadParam in non-obvious way

2016-12-07 Thread Brian Burkhalter
Reprising thread [1]. Issue: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/2d-dev/2016-August/007449.html Patch: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bpb/8154058/webrev.01/ Doc: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bpb/8154058/tiff_metadata.html#MetadataIssuesRead Note that this is a preliminary version as

[OpenJDK 2D-Dev] [9] RFR 8170579: The "Banner page" checkbox is disabled

2016-12-07 Thread Prasanta Sadhukhan
Hi All, Please review a fix for jdk9 where it is seen that "Banner" checkbox in printer dialog is disabled in ubuntu16.10. Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8170579 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~psadhukhan/8170579/webrev.00/ Issue was, in ubuntu16.10 the attribute map does