Hi Omair,
Should I be pushing this to jdk9/dev ? (Or to jdk9/client?)
If you change client code, then the fix should go to the client repo to
avoid merge conflicts and allow for more manual testing prior to
integrating the changes into the master repo.
--
best regards,
Anthony
On
Could you look at the JDK-8012026 fix to investigate, should the
NSTrackingActiveInActiveApp option be changed to NSTrackingActiveAlways
for the resetTrackingRect method in the AWTView.m file for the backport?
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/awt-dev/2013-August/005347.html
Hello, Alexander.
We should either combine these 2 fixes together or back port them separately. I
don’t think it’s a good idea to mix different fixes in a single back port.
It could be a good to also back port 8012026, but as a separate fix.
The back-port and the main fix integrated into JDK 8
On 2014-02-20 09:47, Anthony Petrov wrote:
Hi Omair,
Should I be pushing this to jdk9/dev ? (Or to jdk9/client?)
If you change client code, then the fix should go to the client repo
to avoid merge conflicts and allow for more manual testing prior to
integrating the changes into the master
Hello, Dmitry.
The difference between this backport and main fix is the changes in
CViewPlatformEmbeddedFrame.java. The original changeset integrated into JDK 8
(http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/awt/jdk/rev/e23311e924b1) does not have
them, since this file was added later.
Thank you.
If
Hello Alexander, Petr,
Thank you for review.
I agree, the option NSTrackingActiveInActiveApp should be changed to
NSTrackingActiveAlways. If it is better to back port the changes for
JDK-8012026 under separate fix, I can do it.
The difference between this backport and main fix is the changes
The fix looks good for me.
Thanks,
Alexandr.
On 2/20/2014 3:40 PM, dmitry markov wrote:
Hello Alexander, Petr,
Thank you for review.
I agree, the option NSTrackingActiveInActiveApp should be changed to
NSTrackingActiveAlways. If it is better to back port the changes for
JDK-8012026
- Original Message -
Hi Omair,
Should I be pushing this to jdk9/dev ? (Or to jdk9/client?)
If you change client code, then the fix should go to the client repo to
avoid merge conflicts and allow for more manual testing prior to
integrating the changes into the master repo.
* Magnus Ihse Bursie magnus.ihse.bur...@oracle.com [2014-02-20 05:35]:
From my point of view, you can go either way. The changes are mostly
in the build code, except for an include statement. But if the AWT
folks feel more confident that way, sure, you can go via client.
Pushed:
Yes, approved.
...jim
On 2/17/14 6:09 AM, Anton V. Tarasov wrote:
Jim, so this is ready for a push then.
Thanks!
Anton.
On 15.02.2014 5:01, Jim Graham wrote:
I don't need to see an update for that. I didn't read the entire
webrev, but I looked at this one piece of code and
Mmm, based on the trail of bugs cited on this thread sounds like it's
very much known and dealt with which is great. Unfortunately, for us
upgrading in the short term (and especially as far as JDK 8 where one of
those is marked fixed) is beyond hopeless so it sounds like we're SOL.
Keith
Thus
11 matches
Mail list logo
