<AWT Dev> RfR JDK-8055160
peter.brunet at oracle.com
Wed Jun 10 22:33:52 UTC 2015
Due to some other priorities it's been over 2 months since the last
webrev. An update is here:
The changes from webrev.02 are:
1) The test was changed to not use the service provider to test the
activation of the service provider. Instead a file is created when
Toolkit.getDefaultToolkit activates providers and tested for existence
when the test runs.
2) The copyright header in the new jdk.accessibility files were fixed.
On 4/3/15 3:59 PM, Pete Brunet wrote:
> Due to the recent push of JDK-8076182 (Open source Java Access Bridge)
> which exposed some files that were in closed the webrev needs a full
> re-review. I've also made the changes requested by Mandy.
> On 3/23/15 4:41 PM, Mandy Chung wrote:
>> On 3/19/2015 6:03 PM, Pete Brunet wrote:
>>> A new webrev is available at
>> line 820-821: this comment is incorrect.
>> line 831-838: what happens if ServiceConfigurationException thrown or
>> any exception is thrown by the activate method? This should wrap
>> with AWTError as I mentioned in my previous review comment. This was
>> hidden with the test (see below).
>> line 891-901: this example may not be necessary as the service loader
>> documentation should cover it.
>>> The changes to the tests are:
>>> - added an unused provider
>>> - added a test activating two providers
>>> Mandy, Regarding the last bullet I'm not sure I resolved your
>>> comment, "For the test, since you support multiple providers,
>>> perhaps good to add one more test case to activate two providers and
>>> load two providers but only one is activated." If not, please let
>>> me know.
>> Almost. For Foo, Bar providers, their activate method throwing
>> RuntimeException actually stops loading the second provider. The
>> activate method could perhaps update some static field defined in the
>> Load class if it's called (perhaps adding its name) so that you can
>> tell whether the expected providers are activated. UnusedProvider
>> throwing RuntimeException is good since you don't expect it's activated.
>> Otherwise, looks good.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the awt-dev