From Alan.Bateman at oracle.com  Thu Dec  1 07:51:04 2011
From: Alan.Bateman at oracle.com (Alan Bateman)
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 15:51:04 +0000
Subject: <Beans Dev> 7116954: Misc warnings in
	java.beans/java.beans.context
In-Reply-To: <4ED79844.9050707@oracle.com>
References: <4ED79844.9050707@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <4ED7A268.2040805@oracle.com>

  On 01/12/2011 15:07, Maurizio Cimadamore wrote:
> Hi,
> I tried to cleanup as many warnings as possible in 
> java.beans/java.beans.context [1]. There were a few places (esp. in 
> java.beans.context) in which I had to suppress rawtypes warnings as 
> the raw types were in method signatures of what looked like public 
> API. Feedback welcome.
>
> [1] - http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mcimadamore/7116954.0/ 
> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Emcimadamore/7116954.0/>
>
> Maurizio
I don't know this area but I skimmed through the changes and don't see 
anything obviously wrong. The @SuppressWarnings("rawtypes") on 
java.beans.beancontext.BeanContext is a bit of a shock but as you say, 
this is the API. Can the scope of the suppressed unchecked in 
Introspector.getBeanInfo be reduced by using a temporary variable?

-Alan


From Alan.Bateman at oracle.com  Thu Dec  1 09:04:49 2011
From: Alan.Bateman at oracle.com (Alan Bateman)
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 17:04:49 +0000
Subject: <Beans Dev> 7116954: Misc warnings in
	java.beans/java.beans.context
In-Reply-To: <4ED7AC43.7040501@oracle.com>
References: <4ED79844.9050707@oracle.com> <4ED7A536.4070804@oracle.com>
	<4ED7AC43.7040501@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <4ED7B3B1.3010909@oracle.com>

On 01/12/2011 16:33, Maurizio Cimadamore wrote:
> Updated version [1].
>
> Changes:
>
> *) Beans.java:184 - generified PrivilegedAction
> *) Beans.java:284 - generified PrivilegedAction
> *) NameGenerator.java:108 - changed Object to Integer and removed 
> following cast
> *) Introspector.java: added new fake local variable to reduce scope of 
> @SuppressWarnings
>
> [1] - http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mcimadamore/7116954.1/ 
> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Emcimadamore/7116954.1/>
These changes look fine to me.

Now the question is where to push this, jdk8/tl or jdk8/awt? My guess is 
that the beans activity these days is very low these days so if jdk8/awt 
doesn't see it for weeks then it wouldn't matter. Hopefully Sergey 
Malenkov will chime.

-Alan


From Andrey.Pikalev at oracle.com  Thu Dec  1 09:13:28 2011
From: Andrey.Pikalev at oracle.com (Andrey Pikalev)
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 21:13:28 +0400
Subject: <Beans Dev> 7116954: Misc warnings in
	java.beans/java.beans.context
In-Reply-To: <4ED7B3B1.3010909@oracle.com>
References: <4ED79844.9050707@oracle.com> <4ED7A536.4070804@oracle.com>
	<4ED7AC43.7040501@oracle.com> <4ED7B3B1.3010909@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <4ED7B5B8.6000008@oracle.com>

Typically JavaBeans changes went into Swing (now AWT) gate. I don't 
think this really matter where to push this time assuming the changes 
will be propagated to AWT repo in a few weeks.

Thanks,
         Andrey.

On 12/1/2011 9:04 PM, Alan Bateman wrote:
> On 01/12/2011 16:33, Maurizio Cimadamore wrote:
>> Updated version [1].
>>
>> Changes:
>>
>> *) Beans.java:184 - generified PrivilegedAction
>> *) Beans.java:284 - generified PrivilegedAction
>> *) NameGenerator.java:108 - changed Object to Integer and removed
>> following cast
>> *) Introspector.java: added new fake local variable to reduce scope of
>> @SuppressWarnings
>>
>> [1] - http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mcimadamore/7116954.1/
>> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Emcimadamore/7116954.1/>
> These changes look fine to me.
>
> Now the question is where to push this, jdk8/tl or jdk8/awt? My guess is
> that the beans activity these days is very low these days so if jdk8/awt
> doesn't see it for weeks then it wouldn't matter. Hopefully Sergey
> Malenkov will chime.
>
> -Alan