[OpenJDK 2D-Dev] Review Reqeust for Bug 100068 - SunGraphics2D exposes a reference to itself while non fully initialised

[Mario Torre]

Il 09/07/2009 02:40, Jim Graham ha scritto:

Hi Jim!

> Even more to the point, the sheer size of this patch is disruptive. I
> don't know if there is much of a chance of a cut/paste error in all of
> it - perhaps you used an automated tool to make the changes and so the
> textual replacement is somewhat reliable, but at the very least there is
> now a bit of busy-work on the other end for someone to review the patch
> and verify that every "mumblex" and "mumbley" reference got changed into
> the corresponding "getMumbleX()" and "getMumbleY()" accessors.

Yeah, I see, I tried to be as careful as possible, and manually checked 
all the references (and did a full compile after each field was 
refactored!) and this was already painful. A reviewer must take even 
more care and I supposed this patch was just too much code.

> In the end, I am very sorry that I didn't bring all of this up earlier
> in more detail. I was time-pressured and wrote just a basic summary of
> where I thought it would make sense to spend time on this bug fix and
> now I feel that the appropriate response here is to say that I'd vote
> against this particular change, unfortunately and very much not happily
> after you've done all this work. :-(

No problem, I've learned lots of stuff about the internals of Java2D 
that way anyway.

So here is the deal. I'm going back to the original plan to fix the 
issue, this time without accessors. I'll just invalidate the loops and 
revalidate them elsewhere. The question that still remains is when to 
re-validate the loops? My idea is to make the pipes that use the loops 
to tell this themselves, so we cover future problems if we're going to 
refactor this stuff more. I'm going to work on this a bit this week, of 
course, if you already planned some direction, just tell me (maybe I 
wait your reply this time :)

> I am open to hearing how having accessors here might improve our
> development at this point, but my gut feel after having worked on this
> code for almost a decade is that we are better off without them. Am I
> missing something?
>
> And if you want to vent some frustration - fire away (privately
> hopefully)...

No worries, I'm going to kill myself, but don't feel too guilty (just a 
bit ;)

Cheers,
Mario
-- 
Mario Torre, Software Developer, http://www.jroller.com/neugens/
aicas Allerton Interworks Computer Automated Systems GmbH
Haid-und-Neu-Straße 18 * D-76131 Karlsruhe * Germany
http://www.aicas.com   * Tel: +49-721-663 968-44
pgp key: http://subkeys.pgp.net/ PGP Key ID: 80F240CF
Fingerprint: BA39 9666 94EC 8B73 27FA  FC7C 4086 63E3 80F2 40CF

USt-Id: DE216375633, Handelsregister HRB 109481, AG Mannheim
Geschäftsführer: Dr. James J. Hunt

Please, support open standards:
http://endsoftpatents.org/