[OpenJDK 2D-Dev] <AWT Dev> [8] Review request for JDK-8025684 - Fix Raw and unchecked warnings java.awt.image classes

[Jim Graham]

Thanks Kalyan,

I'll leave the review and approval to someone else because, as I said, I 
was asking an idle question from a limited understanding of the 
compatibility issues of generifying code, and a bit of historical 
perspective from the origin of the APIs...

			...jim

On 10/14/13 1:46 PM, srikalyan chandrashekar wrote:
> Hi Jim, Thanks for reviewing and apologies for the delayed response, I
> have made sure to set the properties type as String -> Object but mostly
> the public constructor(OR) setter method enforces <?, ?> where <Object,
> Object> being too loose is guaranteed to not break at runtime but
> <String, Object> is brittle and may break at runtime . But as you said
> if it is documented then having this hole should be OK.  I have updated
> the webrev and is available in same location
> <https://github.com/srikalyc/JDKfixes/blob/master/java.awt.image.raw_unchecked_webrev.zip>.
>
> --
> Thanks
> kalyan
>
> On 10/2/13 3:13 PM, Jim Graham wrote:
>> I'm not the greatest expert on generics (in particular, in terms of
>> issues of retrofitting generics into existing public code without
>> breaking compatibility), but I'll note that the properties on an image
>> were always "documented" to be String->Object, but that was well
>> before generics and so we just accepted bare hash tables everywhere.
>> Is it possible to have at least some of the declarations of various
>> properties objects to be declared as <String, Object> even though we
>> are loose on the acceptance criteria in various constructors - or
>> would that just completely break compatibility.  I know that we use
>> type erasure so we would never break binary compatibility, but there
>> may be some places where we can have them more strongly typed
>> internally for now, but more accepting at the external API level and
>> then possibly consider improving the externally-visible typing in
>> future versions when a source incompatibility is more appropriate?
>>
>> (I'm asking because I don't understand all of the compatibility issues
>> that this might cause...)
>>
>>             ...jim
>>
>> On 10/2/13 3:02 AM, Artem Ananiev wrote:
>>>
>>> java.awt.image is one of the Java2D packages, so I'm adding 2d-dev to
>>> CC. Please, wait for at least one approval from Java2D team.
>>>
>>> For easier review, I put the webrev here:
>>>
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~art/srikalyc/8025684.00/
>>>
>>> It looks fine to me. There is one "unchecked" warning still left, at
>>> BufferedImage.java:645, it can be fixed by introducing a local variable
>>> and @SuppressWarnings("unchecked"), but I'm not sure it's worth doing.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Artem
>>>
>>> On 10/2/2013 1:51 AM, srikalyan chandrashekar wrote:
>>>> Hi team ,  could someone review the fix
>>>>      Bug      : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8025684
>>>>      Webrev   :
>>>> https://github.com/srikalyc/JDKfixes/blob/master/java.awt.image.raw_unchecked_webrev.zip
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>      Fix      : Raw and unchecked warnings in AWT image classes fixed
>>>>
>