Part of the reason why it's hard to reproduce a bug using a one-shot
report is that there's no way to have a low-effort open discussion and
no way to ask questions that would help clear things up. Not only is
having open discussions of issues beneficial for quickly zeroing in on
a workable
There's no question that the JBS is the way to go for handling existing
reports.
As for incoming reports, I dislike the GitHub issues as they are just a
text dump, and many reporters are not careful about giving you versions
(Java/JavaFX/OS...) or working environment details. You can help GitHub
On 3/23/21 12:34 AM, Johan Vos wrote:
* bug-report system: I'm all in to find a more accessible way, keeping into
account that would require work being done by the community (hence, us) for
converting issues into high-quality JBS issues.
I have two GitHub Issue Templates that gather the same
Hi John, all,
Clearly, there are advantages and disadvantages to the Oracle Web form.
It's not a black/white situation.
We need to find a solution that combines the advantages of being accessible
as well as not creating false expectations.
I really like the JBS system, it is very powerful and
On 3/22/21 3:27 PM, Philip Race wrote:
I am informed that, for no reason given, the corporate IT folks will not
allow attachment upload.
Thank you for looking into it, Phil. It's good at least to have a
definitive answer. I brought this up on the mailing list three years
ago, too:
Re: More
I am informed that, for no reason given, the corporate IT folks will not
allow attachment upload.
Attempts over the years to persuade them otherwise have failed.
The best suggestion is you upload it somewhere else and include the link
in the bug report and
the Oracle reviewer can grab it.
I had missed that as well. I'll close the bug I filed as a duplicate and
raise the priority of that bug.
-- Kevin
On 3/20/2021 11:54 AM, Philip Race wrote:
Ah, I missed that. And with that, I've now found Gary's bug :
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8239138
-phil.
On 3/20/21
And the reaction is interesting. I'll better leave it at that one comment.
On 20-3-2021 20:10, Tom Eugelink wrote:
I could not refrain from commenting on the tone of the blog, in line with what
Johan often complains about. Apparently you guys are stronger than me. But I
was polite and kept
Cool. Thanks Philip!
On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 6:57 PM Philip Race wrote:
> It was a P4 enhancement. I've made it a bug .. this or the new one should
> be closed as a dup.
> Normally I'd close the new one but not so clear here. I'll leave it to
> Kevin to choose.
>
> -phil.
>
> On 3/20/21 11:54
I could not refrain from commenting on the tone of the blog, in line with what
Johan often complains about. Apparently you guys are stronger than me. But I
was polite and kept it to myself.
On 20-3-2021 19:57, Philip Race wrote:
It was a P4 enhancement. I've made it a bug .. this or the new
It was a P4 enhancement. I've made it a bug .. this or the new one
should be closed as a dup.
Normally I'd close the new one but not so clear here. I'll leave it to
Kevin to choose.
-phil.
On 3/20/21 11:54 AM, Philip Race wrote:
Ah, I missed that. And with that, I've now found Gary's bug :
Ah, I missed that. And with that, I've now found Gary's bug :
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8239138
-phil.
On 3/20/21 10:36 AM, Pedro Duque Vieira wrote:
Hi Philip,
Gary Bentley is the blog owner and author of the post. Scott Palmer is
commenting on Gary Bentley's blog post.
I
OpenJFX just doesn't feel like a community-driven project, in a large
part because of how contributors are told to "report" an issue to
Oracle. That's what you do as a customer, not as a contributor.
Contributors want to discuss issues and share their findings, and a
mailing list really is no
Hi Philip,
Gary Bentley is the blog owner and author of the post. Scott Palmer is
commenting on Gary Bentley's blog post.
I was talking about Gary Bentley's comment to Scott Palmer's asking why he
didn't file an issue.
*Scott Palme*r: "*It’s Open Source… submit an issue and a pull request to
at
Oracle has a very different mind set about privacy than Google or Facebook.
It might be very hard to convince the powers that be to add a "please
sell my personal information" checkbox ..
-phil.
On 3/20/21 8:16 AM, Abossolo Foh Guy wrote:
I'm surprised credit is considered important ... .
Actually the way I read it, Scott Palmer added a comment with a link to
the 2014 change that *introduced* the problem.
No one is saying they reported this performance issue in 2014.
-phil.
On 3/20/21 7:37 AM, Pedro Duque Vieira wrote:
Back to the discussion on why did the blog poster not raise
I'm surprised credit is considered important ... .
You're right, but for some of your external contributors it's a business
model useful to communicate with their employers or patrons. I tried to
explain it in a Twitter post but without success :) GitHub is like a
vitrine where one can see
Back to the discussion on why did the blog poster not raise an issue for
the problems he mentioned...
Just FYI (in case you didn't see his recents comments), it appears he did.
He says he did it in a recent comment on his blog post (yesterday):
Just scanning the javafx ports/openjfx GitHub repository listed below, there
appears to have been over 650 GitHub issues raised (and still growing). Some I
see labeled as “bugs” but what about all the others?
It looks that the port project has basically indicated moved to the official
When we were using the GitHub sandbox, we would periodically look at the
GitHub issue tracker there, although it was made clear that the bug
still needed to be submitted to bugreport.java.com before it was actionable.
It really is too bad, though that the bugs submission is effectively a
On 3/19/21 12:37 PM, Philip Race wrote:
I'm surprised credit is considered important
It took me weeks to figure out some bugs and create a good report, all
done as a volunteer in my spare time. Credit is my only compensation.
I went as far as sneaking my name into the source code comments
Interesting that there's no way to add an attachment (image or otherwise).
I'll ask why that can't be made possible.
I'm surprised credit is considered important but I think that the
current way of doing things is
more focused on protecting privacy of bug reporters and that they might
instead
On 3/19/21 11:05 AM, Philip Race wrote:
If this was important to him I don't understand why just a blog post and
not a bug report ..
If I had to guess, it might be because, in the age of GitHub, this is
not what people expect when they try to report a bug:
Report a Bug or Request a Feature
Sadly it has taken > 1 year for his blog post to reach the right audience.
If this was important to him I don't understand why just a blog post and
not a bug report ..
The buffering at least seems like a quick fix.
-phil.
On 3/19/21 9:34 AM, Dirk Lemmermann wrote:
I took the liberty of
Thank you, Dirk.
I'll make sure that the obvious bug of reading from an unbuffered stream
is fixed for FX 17. No promises on the enhancements, of course.
-- Kevin
On 3/19/2021 9:34 AM, Dirk Lemmermann wrote:
I took the liberty of informing the author of the blog. It was hard not to
I took the liberty of informing the author of the blog. It was hard not to
comment on the tone he used ….. but we all know that never leads to anything.
Let the facts speak for themselves and they tell him that he was heard and his
findings resulted in tickets and hopefully fixes soon.
Dirk
>
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8263886
On 3/19/2021 9:17 AM, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
That's an interesting idea about looking at the HTTP response headers
and checking to see whether the file has changed. If it could be done
in such a way that it minimizes overhead, it might be the
That's an interesting idea about looking at the HTTP response headers
and checking to see whether the file has changed. If it could be done in
such a way that it minimizes overhead, it might be the best of both
worlds. I'll file an RFE to look into that...not sure we'll get time to
do it,
Hey everybody!
These all sound like really good points. I agree with Pedro that the ability to
auto-reload (especially during development) is a really great thing, but I
agree with the blog post and Clemens that in production this can be problematic
depending on the location of the source CSS
In the blog post he makes it sounds like it isn't good for anything to have
that. That it is just a bug, something that wasn't well thought through and
reviewed or a pointless feature. Which I totally disagree with. I think it
can be very interesting to take advantage of that.
I think the
This isn't something we'd change anyway without a lot of discussion;
almost certainly we would leave the current behavior as the default, and
provide an "opt out" for applications that prefer to do so.
As for the performance problem, ignoring the tone of the blog and the
fact that the point
A good feature during development is not necessarily a good feature during
production, especially if it (apparently) has a significant performance impact.
But I see your point.
On 19-3-2021 15:32, Pedro Duque Vieira wrote:
Hi
I actually totally disagree with his conclusion.
In fact, I'd
Hi
I actually totally disagree with his conclusion.
In fact, I'd say, that's one of the hidden gems of JavaFX!
Check out CSSFX and this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RELKg32xEWU
to understand the advantages of this feature (ScenicView has also
integrated CSSFX to take advantage of this).
The blog does make some valid points.
On 19-3-2021 14:29, Clement Levallois wrote:
Hi all,
I just came across this blog post which complains about a badly implemented
stream reader in JavaFX. The general tone is not nice, but I figured this could
be useful to the developers maintaining this
34 matches
Mail list logo
