[OpenJDK 2D-Dev] JDK 9: RFR: 8033716: Fix raw and unchecked lint warnings in com.sun.imageio

[Phil Race]

Yes, it should get 2d review and I will look at this soon as priorities
permit but the *conclusion* is that the client team
ask that such changes go into the client forest. If this is a problem for
you then we will do it on your behalf. We do not want client changes
directly into dev. That is a very polite but firm request.

-phil.

On 2/7/2014 1:54 PM, Henry Jen wrote:
> Thanks Joe for reviewing.
>
> I would like to get 2d developer review as well before pushing this, 
> let me know if that's not necessary.
>
> Also there was a discussion ealier on whether such change should go to 
> client or jdk9/dev repo, do we have a conclusion?
>
> Cheers,
> Henry
>
> On 02/05/2014 06:01 PM, Joe Darcy wrote:
>> Hi Henry,
>>
>> On 02/05/2014 12:19 PM, Henry Jen wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Please review the webrev to clean up raw and unchecked warnings in
>>> com.sun.imageio packag at,
>>>
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~henryjen/jdk9/8033716/0/webrev/
>>>
>>> The more significant change in this webrev is that I have changed the
>>> clone() method of MarkerSegment-derived classes to return exact type
>>> rather than Object. Otherwise, it's basically add type information and
>>> eliminate cast no longer needed.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Henry
>>
>> I looked over the changes and they generally look good. I've taken a
>> closer look at the clone-related changes.
>>
>> The types SOSMarkerSegment, SOFMarkerSegment, MarkerSegment, etc. are
>> call package-private and all have had their Object-returning clone
>> methods replaced with a self-type returning clone method, a covariant
>> override.
>>
>> Since there are no other potential subclasses of these com.sun.* type
>> that would already have had a covariant override of clone, I believe the
>> changes to clone on these three methods is fine. (This avoid the hazards
>> outlined in JDK-7140820: (coll) Add covariant overrides to Collections
>> clone methods.)
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> -Joe