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

[srikalyan chandrashekar]

Hi 2D folks any 2nd take on this for approval?

---
Thanks
kalyan

On 10/15/2013 3:23 AM, Artem Ananiev wrote:
>
> On 10/15/2013 12:46 AM, 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>.
>>
>
> The new version is uploaded here:
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~art/srikalyc/8025684.02/
>
> Thanks,
>
> Artem
>
>> -- 
>> 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
>>>>>
>>