That's the first time the pentium bug ever worked in my favor... ;) The changes look good to me. approved (with a lower case 'a', since I'm not a Reviewer with an upper case 'R'). -DrD-
1) Redundant return removed.
2) Kumar and I talked: Ever since the pentium bug, 1 in 80 trillion seems a big risk .. so the code was changed to check for equality with the whole class name:
private static final String JAVAFX_FXHELPER_CLASS_NAME_SUFFIX = "sun.launcher.LauncherHelper$FXHelper"; ...
if (JAVAFX_FXHELPER_CLASS_NAME_SUFFIX.equals(mainClass.getName()) || doesExtendFXApplication(mainClass)) { // Will abort() if there are problems with FX runtime FXHelper.setFXLaunchParameters(what, mode); return FXHelper.class; }
Thanks
-neil
On 5/1/2014 8:05 AM, David DeHaven wrote:
Do we care about the 1 in more than 80 trillion case where the third party Main-Class would be named "LauncherHelper$FXHelper"? I think the probability is extremely unlikely so I'm fine with it the way it's written.
LauncherHelper.java: 590 return;
Redundant return statement?
-DrD-
For completeness the bugid line needs the bugid as shown, otherwise SQE will open another bug to have you fix this.
-26 * @bug 8001533 8004547 +26 * @bug 8001533 8004547 8035782
other than that it looks good, I can push this with the above change.
Anyone else have any concerns with this change before I push ?
Thanks Kumar
On 4/30/2014 1:47 PM, Neil Toda wrote:
Please review Launcher change and test.
I've added to the Launcher test : FXLauncherTest.java The test will now check that LauncherHelper$FXHelper is not loaded for non-JavaFX class and jar files.
webrev.02 contains only review suggestions from webrev.01 and the new test class.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ntoda/8035782/webrev.02/
for bug:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8035782
Thanks
-neil