<AWT Dev> RfR JDK-8055160
peter.brunet at oracle.com
Wed Jun 10 22:39:15 UTC 2015
Note that I need to remove the import of java.io.PrintWriter in
On 6/10/15 5:33 PM, Pete Brunet wrote:
> 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.
More information about the build-dev