Re: [9] Review request: 8180338: Additional HTML5 cleanup

Jonathan (Giles) and Jon (Gibbons), Here is an updated webrev for this bug that fixes all errors and warnings in "introduction_to_fxml.html" reported by tidy. It additionally fixes 3 of the warnings (there were already no errors) in cssref.html. As with the previous webrev, the outdated "faq.h

[9] Review request: 8181829: Broken link to css reference guide in Background documentation

Phil or Jonathan, Please review the simple fix for a broken javadoc link: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8181829 The diff for the proposed fix, which is also in JBS, is: diff --git a/modules/javafx.graphics/src/main/java/javafx/scene/layout/Background.java b/modules/javafx.graphics

[9] Review request: 8181828: Broken Image link in documentation for Tangent interpolator

Jim or Phil, Please review the simple fix to move tangent_interpolator.png to the correct module. https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8181828 The diff for the proposed fix, which is also in JBS, is: dif

[9] Review request: 8179644: Update copyright header for files modified in 2017

Hi Chien, Please review the following simple fix to update the copyright header dates: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8179644 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8179644/webrev/ Thanks. -- Kevin

[9] Review request: 8180338: Additional HTML5 cleanup

Hi Jon, Can you review this simple change to the three .html files (other than package.html) in the FX docs? https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8180338 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8180338/webrev.00/ Thanks. -- Kevin

[9] Review request: 8180070: Fix additional typos in API docs

Jonathan, Please review the following fixes to various typos in the javadoc-generated API docs: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8180070 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8180070/webrev.00/ Thanks. -- Kevin

[9] Review request: JDK-8180368: javapackager.exe fails to launch: Unrecognized option: -m

Kevin, Please review my changes about removing the code that constructs java cmd based on JAVA_HOME. JIRA: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8180368 Webrev: webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vdrozdov/JDK-8180368/webrev.00/ --Victor

[9] Review request: 8180064: Add missing copyright headers to package.html files

Jonathan, Please review the following simple fix to add proper copyright headers to each package.html file and also the three other .html files in our doc-files directories: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8180064 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8180064/webrev/ Thanks. -- Kevin

[9] Review request: 8180337: JavaFX 9 msg drop 40 l10n resource file update

I am posting this review on behalf of Leo Jiang (ljiang). https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8180337 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8180337/webrev/ This is the last planned translation drop for localized resource message for FX in JDK 9. -- Kevin

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

Hi Kevin, On 05/10/2017 03:19 AM, Kevin Rushforth wrote: 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-81

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

I added the missing copyright header before pushing. I will file two new issues: one to add copyright headers to all the other package.html files (which I will do in JDK 9) and one to convert all of the package.html files to package-info.java (which I will target to 10...I don't want to make th

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

> 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 a

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

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 Ru

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

> 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 descr

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

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 descripti

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

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/com

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

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.service

[9] Review request: 8177341: Fix typos in FX API docs

Please review the following accumulated javadoc changes: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8177341 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8177341/webrev.00/ Thanks. -- Kevin

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

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

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

This seems like something that could be useful, although at this point in the release we would more likely do it for JDK 10. I do note that including the class that made the illegal access is generally a good idea when that class is attempting the access on its own behalf. For frameworks such a

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

If there is not already such an exception, it would seem like a good idea to have an exception that formats such a message from constructor parameters providing the details so that it’s the same everywhere, and so that it can be changed in once place if needed. Gregg > On May 3, 2017, at 9:48

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

Mandy Chung wrote: Looks good. Thank you for your help on this and for your review. "Deploying an Application as a Module” section is duplicated in several JavaBean*Property classes. One alternative is to move it to the package summary. I have no objection to leave it as is. I th

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

Looks good. "Deploying an Application as a Module” section is duplicated in several JavaBean*Property classes. One alternative is to move it to the package summary. I have no objection to leave it as is. Mandy > On May 3, 2017, at 4:30 PM, Kevin Rushforth > wrote: > > JBS: https://bugs.op

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

JBS: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8177566 Here is the updated webrev with (I hope) all comments addressed: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8177566/webrev.01/complete-webrev/ For those who reviewed the earlier webrev, I have prepared delta webrevs. * Delta webrev for the fix itself

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

Forgot to respond to this: Also in MethodUtil::invoke 61if (!module.isExported(packageName)) { You can do this check only if module.isNamed. No, this check will work fine on an unnamed module. Module::isExported and Module::isOpen always return true for Module::unnamed. -- Ke

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

OK, I'll create a more informative message. I think it will be more clear in the message to just say that it needs to "open" the package to javafx.base, since that would be the recommendation for a package that isn't already exported unconditionally. I'll send out a new webrev this morning with

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

> On May 2, 2017, at 2:22 PM, Kevin Rushforth > wrote: > > Here is the message: > > IllegalAccessException: class com.sun.javafx.property.MethodHelper cannot > access class com.foo (in module foo.app) because module foo.app does not open > com.foo to javafx.base > It would be better to em

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

inline Mandy Chung wrote: Hi Kevin, On May 1, 2017, at 5:21 PM, 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/webre

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

Hi Kevin, > On May 1, 2017, at 5:21 PM, 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-

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

Is this any better? It adds an example module-info.java file to JavaBeanXXX as is done in the FXML class. -- NOTE: If the Java Bean class is in a named module, then it must be reflectively accessible to the

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

David Hill wrote: Current: All classes and properties used in a select-binding have to be declared public. Additionally, if any class is in a named module, then the module must |open|

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

Current: All classes and properties used in a select-binding have to be declared public. Additionally, if any class is in a named module, then the module must |open| t

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

I presume you are talking about the short description I added to the beans classes and to the select binding methods (and, for that matter, the *PropertyValueFactory classes)? I agree that it does seem a bit terse, so you are right that developers may have a hard time understanding it. Withou

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

On 02/05/2017 01:21, 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

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

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 [

[9] Review request: 8179454: Build FX docs for HTML 5

Chien or Dave, Please review this simple request to enable running javadoc with the '-html5' option. This will match what the JDK does when building the docs bundle (which now also includes javafx.* modules). https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8179454 the one-line diff is in the JBS bu

Re: [9] Review request: 8179395: Duplicate entry in javafxsdk.tbom file

Looks good. Thank you Kevin! Regards, Leo On 04/27/2017 07:57 PM, Kevin Rushforth wrote: Leo & Chris, Please review the following fix to remove a duplicate entry from the javafxsdk.tbom file: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8179395 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8179395/webrev/ Th

[9] Review request: 8179395: Duplicate entry in javafxsdk.tbom file

Leo & Chris, Please review the following fix to remove a duplicate entry from the javafxsdk.tbom file: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8179395 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8179395/webrev/ Thanks. -- Kevin

[9] Review request: 8179363 Errors in Redistributable Module List

Kevin, Victor, Please review this change to fix the redistributable file list. JIRA: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8179363 Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~cbensen/JDK-8179363/webrev.00/ Chris

Re: [9] Review request: 8178015: Clarify requirement for app modules to export/open packages to javafx modules

OK. I'll make that change as part of JDK-8177341. -- Kevin Alex Buckley wrote: Yes, I recommend not pointing ordinary consumers of JavaFX to java.lang.reflect.Module::add* methods. If open-ness is ever mentioned (and as you know, I do like it to be acknowledged), then it can be parenthetical

Re: [9] Review request: 8178015: Clarify requirement for app modules to export/open packages to javafx modules

Yes, I recommend not pointing ordinary consumers of JavaFX to java.lang.reflect.Module::add* methods. If open-ness is ever mentioned (and as you know, I do like it to be acknowledged), then it can be parenthetical. Alex On 4/21/2017 4:08 PM, Kevin Rushforth wrote: OK, so you recommend changi

Re: [9] Review request: 8178015: Clarify requirement for app modules to export/open packages to javafx modules

OK, so you recommend changing module-info.class to module-info.java and removing the reference to Module#addExports entirely, right? I can fix this as part of a general cleanup JBS issue [1] that is left open to pick up various typos, etc. Would you recommend the same for the FXML annotation,

Re: [9] Review request: 8178015: Clarify requirement for app modules to export/open packages to javafx modules

On 4/20/2017 11:06 AM, Kevin Rushforth wrote: Additionally, I removed the example in the FXML annotation showing the use of "opens to" in module-info.java (but left the example in Application). Similar to my private comments to you on a related matter: Recommend straightforwardness: "... the m

[9] Review request: 8178989: Missing copyright headers for some files

Hi Chien, Please review this simple fix to add missing copyright headers to 7 files: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8178989 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8178989/webrev.00/ Thanks. -- Kevin

Re: [9] Review request: 8178015: Clarify requirement for app modules to export/open packages to javafx modules

Alan Bateman wrote: On 20/04/2017 19:06, Kevin Rushforth wrote: Here is an updated webrev with a few suggested wording changes (e.g., removed the reference to ModuleDescriptor, changed "accessible by" back to "accessible to"). http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8178015/webrev.02/ Additional

Re: [9] Review request: 8178015: Clarify requirement for app modules to export/open packages to javafx modules

On 20/04/2017 19:06, Kevin Rushforth wrote: Here is an updated webrev with a few suggested wording changes (e.g., removed the reference to ModuleDescriptor, changed "accessible by" back to "accessible to"). http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8178015/webrev.02/ Additionally, I removed the examp

Re: [9] Review request: 8178015: Clarify requirement for app modules to export/open packages to javafx modules

+1 Mandy > On Apr 20, 2017, at 11:06 AM, Kevin Rushforth > wrote: > > Here is an updated webrev with a few suggested wording changes (e.g., removed > the reference to ModuleDescriptor, changed "accessible by" back to > "accessible to"). > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8178015/webrev.02/

Re: [9] Review request: 8178015: Clarify requirement for app modules to export/open packages to javafx modules

Here is an updated webrev with a few suggested wording changes (e.g., removed the reference to ModuleDescriptor, changed "accessible by" back to "accessible to"). http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8178015/webrev.02/ Additionally, I removed the example in the FXML annotation showing the use of "

[9] Review request: 8091730: Enable -Xdoclint:all to treat all javadoc warnings as errors

Please review the following to enable building the FX docs with "javadoc -Xdoclint:all". https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8091730 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8091730/webrev.00/ This will allow to catch doc warnings early before delivering them to the JDK 9 build, and will allow the

[9] Review request: 8178329: Update minimum boot JDK to jdk-9+165

Please review the following to bump the minimum build number of the boot JDK used to build FX 9 to 165 [1]. https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8178329 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8178329/webrev.00/ I'll wait until tomorrow afternoon to push this, if the review is done by then. Than

Re: [9] Review request: 8178015: Clarify requirement for app modules to export/open packages to javafx modules

Mandy Chung wrote: On Apr 18, 2017, at 12:48 PM, Kevin Rushforth wrote: Alan Bateman wrote: On 18/04/2017 19:19, Kevin Rushforth wrote: Good suggestion. Here is an updated webrev with Mandy's suggestion and yours: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8178015/webrev.01/ -- Kevin

Re: [9] Review request: 8178015: Clarify requirement for app modules to export/open packages to javafx modules

> On Apr 18, 2017, at 12:48 PM, Kevin Rushforth > wrote: > > > > Alan Bateman wrote: >> >> >> On 18/04/2017 19:19, Kevin Rushforth wrote: >>> Good suggestion. Here is an updated webrev with Mandy's suggestion and >>> yours: >>> >>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8178015/webrev.01/ >>> >

Re: [9] Review request: 8178015: Clarify requirement for app modules to export/open packages to javafx modules

Alan Bateman wrote: On 18/04/2017 19:19, Kevin Rushforth wrote: Good suggestion. Here is an updated webrev with Mandy's suggestion and yours: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8178015/webrev.01/ -- Kevin This looks mostly okay. I guess for FXML then I assume that the annotated member coul

Re: [9] Review request: 8178015: Clarify requirement for app modules to export/open packages to javafx modules

On 18/04/2017 19:19, Kevin Rushforth wrote: Good suggestion. Here is an updated webrev with Mandy's suggestion and yours: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8178015/webrev.01/ -- Kevin This looks mostly okay. I guess for FXML then I assume that the annotated member could be public, in which

Re: [9] Review request: 8178015: Clarify requirement for app modules to export/open packages to javafx modules

Good suggestion. Here is an updated webrev with Mandy's suggestion and yours: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8178015/webrev.01/ -- Kevin Alan Bateman wrote: On 18/04/2017 01:00, Kevin Rushforth wrote: Please review the following javadoc change: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-81

Re: [9] Review request: 8178015: Clarify requirement for app modules to export/open packages to javafx modules

On 18/04/2017 01:00, Kevin Rushforth wrote: Please review the following javadoc change: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8178015 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8178015/webrev.00/ This restores the links to the Module class that had to be removed during the transition period for the m

Re: [9] Review request: 8178015: Clarify requirement for app modules to export/open packages to javafx modules

> On Apr 17, 2017, at 5:00 PM, Kevin Rushforth > wrote: > > Please review the following javadoc change: > > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8178015 > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8178015/webrev.00/ > + * Applications in a Module : + * {@link Module#isOpen(String,Module) open} the

[9] Review request: 8178015: Clarify requirement for app modules to export/open packages to javafx modules

Please review the following javadoc change: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8178015 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8178015/webrev.00/ This restores the links to the Module class that had to be removed during the transition period for the move of Module and Layer from java.lang.reflec

[9] Review request: 8178413 Mark All Exported Java Packager APIs as Deprecated

Kevin, Victor, and Mandy, Please review this change to deprecate all the existing non documented Java Packager API for JDK 9 and provide a new API for JDK 10. JIRA: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8178413 Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~cbensen/JDK-8178413/webrev.02/ Chris

[9] Review request: 8178132: Add @moduleGraph javadoc tag to javadoc for JavaFX modules

Mandy and Dave, Please review the following fix to add '@moduleGraph' tags to the javafx.* and jdk.packager* modules: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8178132 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8178132/webrev.00/ I also ignore the tag when building the FX javadocs. -- Kevin

[9] Review request: 8178282: Add '@since 9' javadoc tags to JavaFX module descriptions

Jonathan & Chris, Please review the following to add the missing @since tags, and simple javadoc description for jdk.packager.* https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8178282 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8178282/webrev.00/ Thanks. -- Kevin

[9] Review request: 8178281: Remove @link reference to Module class until boot JDK is updated

Phil, Please review the following fix (which is a follow-on to JDK-8177751). https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8178281 The patch is in the JBS; it changes "{@link Module#addOpens}" to {@code Module.addOpens} in one more place. -- Kevin

Re: [9] Review request: 8173080: Add licenses for non-distributed third-party source code in repo

> On Apr 5, 2017, at 3:51 PM, Kevin Rushforth > wrote: > > Dave, > > Please review the following fix to add missing .md license files for > non-distributed third-party source code in our repo: > > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8173080 > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8173080/webr

[9] Review request: 8173080: Add licenses for non-distributed third-party source code in repo

Dave, Please review the following fix to add missing .md license files for non-distributed third-party source code in our repo: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8173080 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8173080/webrev.00/ -- Kevin

[9] Review request: 8169555: Need unit tests for JDK-8169289

Dave and Dave, Please review: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8169555 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8169555/webrev.00/ This adds three new unit tests for verifying that we can launch modular FX applications. -- Kevin

[9] Review request: 8177451 javapackager -help prints help message of java -help

Kevin, Please review this fix to the javapackager.exe launcher. My last change, I thought I had tested it thoroughly but I made a mistake where I put one of the quotes but I also noticed some other problems. So it’s now launching as a modular application as well. This time I’ve carefully tested

[9] Review request: 8177412: Remove unused third-party code from WebKit sources

Hi Guru and Arun, Please review the following: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8177412 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8177412/webrev.00/ This removed the unused code listed in the bug description. The product code is unaffected by this fix. -- Kevin

[9] Review request: 8177081: visible entity for @ in sample code in ImageView

Please review the following simple doc fix: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8177081 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8177081/webrev.00/ Thanks. -- Kevin

[9] Review request: 8172069: Modena sample: no response after clicking "Restart" button

Chien, Please review this fix for a typo in one of our demo programs. https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8172069 The one line fix is in JBS. -- Kevin

[9] Review request: 8176818: Disable failing full-screen and maximize tests on Mac

[Resend with correct JBS bug ID] Please review this simple fix to disable 3 failing unit tests on Mac platforms (there are already JBS bugs filed tracking the failures on Mac). https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8176818 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8176818/webrev.00/ -- Kevin

[9] Review request: 8174123: Disable failing full-screen and maximize tests on Mac

Please review this simple fix to disable 3 failing unit tests on Mac platforms (there are already JBS bugs filed tracking the failures on Mac). https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8174123 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8176818/webrev.00/ -- Kevin

[9] Review request for 8175822: Pulldown position regression and not painting correctly tooltips regression

Hello Kevin & David, Please review the fix for jfx9: bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8175822 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ssadetsky/8175822/webrev.00/ --Semyon

[9] Review request: 8176770: Use consistent naming for LGPL in license files

Please review the following simple change to use a consistent name in the markdown files for the LGPL license (this does not change the text of the license itself, just the title). https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8176770 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8176770/webrev.00/ Thanks. -- K

[9] Review request: 8176582 javapackager.exe doesn't work from c:\program files

Kevin, Victor, Please review this change to add quotes around path strings. JIRA: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8176582 Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~cbensen/JDK-8176582/webrev.01/ Chris

[9] Review request: 8176538: Fix errors in JavaFX API docs when using 'javadoc -html5'

Please review the following javadoc-only change to make the FX API docs doclint clean with -html5 : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8176538 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8176538/webrev.00/ I verified that with these changes we are doclint clean both with and without the -html5 optio

[9] Review request: 8090255: Fix doclint errors and warnings in JavaFX API docs

Chien & Jonathan, Please review the javadoc changes for the rest of the modules -- javafx.fxml, javafx.media, javafx.web -- to make them doclint clean. https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8090255 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8090255/webrev.00/ Component owners for these three modules

[9] Review request: 8176404: Remove public test-only convenience method from CssParser

Hi Jonathan, Please review the following to remove a method that was mistakenly made public when the CssParser, etc., classes were added as public API as part of JEP 253: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8176404 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8176404/webrev.00/ Details are in JBS.

[9] Review request: 8088865: Need better documentation for the FX initialization process

Hi Jonathan, Please review the following doc fix: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8088865 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8088865/webrev.00/ Thanks. -- Kevin

[9] Review request: 8175051: PerspectiveCamera docs are misleading for movable Camera

Hi Chien, Please review the following doc fix: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8175051 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8175051/webrev.00/ Thanks. -- Kevin

[9] Review request: 8176158: Fix typos in FX API docs

Hi Jonathan, Please review the following doc change: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8176158 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8176158/webrev.00/ Thanks. -- Kevin

[9] Review request: 8174971: Missing modified source location in third-party WebKit, GStreamer, and Glib licenses

Alexander & Guru, Please review the following addition to the 3rd-party license files for media & web: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8174971 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8174971/webrev.00/ -- Kevin

[9] Review request: 8174972: WebKit version number is missing in third-party license file

Please review the following simple fix to add the WebKit version number (602.1) to the third-party license file: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8174972 The one line diff is in a JBS comment: -- Kevin

Re: [9] Review request: 8170701: Update FXML documentation for setAccessible

> I see. I’m not close to this spec. I am not sure if it worths further clarification such as “it is a public member”. I’ll leave it up for you to decide. I like this suggestion, so I will change it before I push. Thanks. -- Kevin Mandy Chung wrote: On Mar 6, 2017, at 7:11 AM, Kevin R

Re: [9] Review request: 8170701: Update FXML documentation for setAccessible

> On Mar 6, 2017, at 7:11 AM, Kevin Rushforth > wrote: > > > > Mandy Chung wrote: >> >>> On Mar 4, 2017, at 5:14 PM, Kevin Rushforth >>> wrote: >>> >>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8170701/webrev.01/ >>>

[9] Review request for 8176236: Some field descriptions are truncated after the JDK-8163501

Kevin, Could you please review this fix? https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8176236 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vadim/8176236/webrev.00/ Thanks, Vadim

Re: [9] Review request: 8170702: Document that javafx.graphics needs explicit access to application main class

Mandy Chung wrote: On Mar 4, 2017, at 5:15 PM, Kevin Rushforth wrote: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8170702/webrev.01/ Nit: @linkplain will show the normal font as text in javadoc rather than like the font for {@code…} Right...see my other reply. I'm happy to make this change i

Re: [9] Review request: 8170701: Update FXML documentation for setAccessible

Mandy Chung wrote: On Mar 4, 2017, at 5:14 PM, Kevin Rushforth wrote: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8170701/webrev.01/ 40 * object {@link Module#isOpen opens} the containing package to the Nit: s/@link/@linkplain 41 * {@code javafx.fxml} module, either in its {@link ModuleDe

Re: [9] Review request: 8170702: Document that javafx.graphics needs explicit access to application main class

Mandy Chung wrote: On Mar 4, 2017, at 1:04 AM, Kevin Rushforth mailto:kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com>> wrote: Mandy Chung wrote: On Mar 3, 2017, at 10:36 PM, Kevin Rushforth wrote: [fixed subject line] Please review the following to document that javafx.graphics needs explicit access to

Re: [9] Review request: 8170701: Update FXML documentation for setAccessible

> On Mar 4, 2017, at 5:14 PM, Kevin Rushforth > wrote: > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8170701/webrev.01/ > 40 * object {@link Module#isOpen opens} the containing package to the Nit: s/@link/@linkplain 41 * {@code javafx.fxml} module, either in its {@link ModuleDescriptor} 42 *

Re: [9] Review request: 8170702: Document that javafx.graphics needs explicit access to application main class

> On Mar 4, 2017, at 5:15 PM, Kevin Rushforth > wrote: > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8170702/webrev.01/ Nit: @linkplain will show the normal font as text in javadoc rather than like the font for {@code…} 209 * be a public subclass of Application, in a package that is 210 *

Re: [9] Review request: 8170702: Document that javafx.graphics needs explicit access to application main class

> On Mar 4, 2017, at 1:04 AM, Kevin Rushforth > wrote: > > > > Mandy Chung wrote: >> >>> On Mar 3, 2017, at 10:36 PM, Kevin Rushforth >>> wrote: >>> >>> [fixed subject line] >>> >>> Please review the following to document that javafx.graphics needs exp

Re: [9] Review request: 8170702: Document that javafx.graphics needs explicit access to application main class

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8170702/webrev.01/ Kevin Rushforth wrote: Mandy Chung wrote: On Mar 3, 2017, at 10:36 PM, Kevin Rushforth wrote: [fixed subject line] Please review the following to document that javafx.graphics needs explicit access to the Application class. https://bu

Re: [9] Review request: 8170701: Update FXML documentation for setAccessible

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8170701/webrev.01/ Kevin Rushforth wrote: Mandy Chung wrote: On Mar 3, 2017, at 10:29 PM, Kevin Rushforth wrote: Please review the following to update the FXML docs to document the requirement for a module that annotates non-public members with @FXML to "

Re: [9] Review request: 8170701: Update FXML documentation for setAccessible

Mandy Chung wrote: On Mar 3, 2017, at 10:29 PM, Kevin Rushforth wrote: Please review the following to update the FXML docs to document the requirement for a module that annotates non-public members with @FXML to "open" the containing package to the javafx.fxml module. https://bugs.openjdk.

Re: [9] Review request: 8170702: Document that javafx.graphics needs explicit access to application main class

Mandy Chung wrote: On Mar 3, 2017, at 10:36 PM, Kevin Rushforth wrote: [fixed subject line] Please review the following to document that javafx.graphics needs explicit access to the Application class. https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8170702 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8170702/

[9] Review request: 8176167: Point to JDK 9 EA docs when building FX 9 docs

Dave, Please review the following to point to the right place when we have a link to a JDK API when building the FX javadocs: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8176167 The one-line diff is in the bug report: -- Kevin

Re: [9] Review request: 8170702: Document that javafx.graphics needs explicit access to application main class

> On Mar 3, 2017, at 10:36 PM, Kevin Rushforth > wrote: > > [fixed subject line] > > Please review the following to document that javafx.graphics needs explicit > access to the Application class. > > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8170702 > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8170702/w

Re: [9] Review request: 8170701: Update FXML documentation for setAccessible

> On Mar 3, 2017, at 10:29 PM, Kevin Rushforth > wrote: > > Please review the following to update the FXML docs to document the > requirement for a module that annotates non-public members with @FXML to > "open" the containing package to the javafx.fxml module. > > https://bugs.openjdk.java.

[9] Review request: 8170702: Document that javafx.graphics needs explicit access to application main class

[fixed subject line] Please review the following to document that javafx.graphics needs explicit access to the Application class. https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8170702 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8170702/webrev.00/ -- Kevin

[9] Review request:

Please review the following to document that javafx.graphics needs explicit access to the Application class. https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8170702 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8170702/webrev.00/ -- Kevin

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >