Re: Review request for 8169294:

On 11/7/2016 1:14 PM, Laurent Bourgès wrote: The only difference in Path2D.java I noted is that the Java2D version has an EXPAND_MIN which is 10, but you re-use INIT_SIZE, which is 20, here for the same purpose. You're right; I think I didn't want to add an extra constant but if you prefer be

Re: Review request for 8169294:

I'll review the test tomorrow (I'm a little backed up on my code reviews given the impending change to build with jigsaw JDK). -- Kevin Laurent Bourgès wrote: Jim, 2016-11-07 21:05 GMT+01:00 Jim Graham >: I'd like to see Kevin review the test as I'm not

Re: Review request for 8169294:

Jim, 2016-11-07 21:05 GMT+01:00 Jim Graham : > I'd like to see Kevin review the test as I'm not the best expert on our > JUnit framework. > I just added @Test annotations and kept the jtreg tags in header (for information). I could add asserts but JUnit does intercept any thrown exception and re

Re: Review request for 8169294:

I'd like to see Kevin review the test as I'm not the best expert on our JUnit framework. It looks like it is mostly just going to emit some printouts about performance (using echo() and log()) and verify that we don't get any ArrayBounds related exceptions (or worse, OOME)? The only differen

Review request for 8169294:

Hi, Please review this Path2D fix improving its storage growth algorithm as done in java2d: JBS: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8169294 Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~lbourges/fx/path2D/ PS: I converted the former jtreg test to JUnit test for OpenJFX. I hope it is correct, as I was