The fix looks good to me.
Thanks,
Alexandr.
On 12/19/2016 10:29 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
19 дек. 2016 г., в 22:28, Sergey Bylokhov <sergey.bylok...@oracle.com
<mailto:sergey.bylok...@oracle.com>> написал(а):
Hello.
Please review an updated version of the fix.
- The comments are updated.
Two additional public api are deprecated:
- KeyEvent.getKeyModifiersText()
- AWTEvent(Event event)
Note that I have to add @SuppressWarnings("deprecation») in places
where the old API is used, because the option which ignores this
warning was removed from the makefile. We will need to fix all of
them one by one in jdk10, I’ll file a CR for this.
Ouch the link is:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~serb/8143077/webrev.04/
<http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Eserb/8143077/webrev.04/>
On 10/26/2016 6:43 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
On 25.10.16 18:46, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
I wonder why he should decide that the old code can be "simply
replaced" by the new one? I suppose that at least he should read the
specification of the new extended API. There is no notion that this
api is replaced by the new one, there is a recommendation that
the new
one should be used instead.
After reading such recommendation it's hard to conclude that one
"should
read the specification of the new extended API". Even "@see" tag
pointing to the extended API is not provided (I'm not even mentioning
the warning that the extended API may be nonequivalent replacement is
absent). I read this recommendation as it is: replace one constant
with
another, no side effects expected.
Good to know that you don't read the specification of the methods
before using. So what is your proposal? Should I add a notion that
these extendent constants contains different int values, and if the
user depends from them in some way then he should not replace the
old one to the new one? Or what @see reference should be added from
some fields to another?
The proposal is the same to notify user that he/she should not only
replace the constant but start to use another API. It's up to you
how to formulate this. If I did this in minimalistic way I would write:
@deprecated It is recommended that SHIFT_DOWN_MASK and {@link
getModifiersEx()} be used instead.
We already have a notions that these "extended modifier constant"
should be used in the constructor of InputEvent and moreover in
spec
of getModifiersEx() we have an additional examples how to use this
constants. This is why we will have a reference from old
constans to
the new, and from getModifiers() to the getModifiersEx();
