[OpenJDK 2D-Dev] [9] RFR JDK-8147002:[macosx] Arabic character cannot be rendered on MacOS X
Prahalad Kumar Narayanan
prahalad.kumar.narayanan at oracle.com
Fri Feb 10 03:34:34 UTC 2017
The change looks good. +1.
Minor observation: The copyright should be updated to 2017 in the CFont.java file.
If you use any script to update the same, then ignore this observation.
Thanks
Have a good day
Prahalad N.
-----Original Message-----
From: 2d-dev-request at openjdk.java.net [mailto:2d-dev-request at openjdk.java.net]
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 3:37 AM
To: 2d-dev at openjdk.java.net
Subject: 2d-dev Digest, Vol 117, Issue 3
Send 2d-dev mailing list submissions to
2d-dev at openjdk.java.net
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/2d-dev
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
2d-dev-request at openjdk.java.net
You can reach the person managing the list at
2d-dev-owner at openjdk.java.net
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of 2d-dev digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. [9] RFR JDK-8147002:[macosx] Arabic character cannot be
rendered on MacOS X (Prasanta Sadhukhan)
2. RFR: 8172967: [macosx] Exception while working with layout
for text containing unmappable character (Philip Race)
3. Re: Review Request for JDK-7107905: ColorModel subclasses
are missing hashCode() or equals() or both methods (Jim Graham)
4. Re: Review Request for JDK-7107905: ColorModel subclasses
are missing hashCode() or equals() or both methods (Phil Race)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 14:38:11 +0530
From: Prasanta Sadhukhan <prasanta.sadhukhan at oracle.com>
To: 2d-dev <2d-dev at openjdk.java.net>, Philip Race
<philip.race at oracle.com>
Subject: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] [9] RFR JDK-8147002:[macosx] Arabic
character cannot be rendered on MacOS X
Message-ID: <459b6a81-1ae9-9876-e86a-c567dd4529e8 at oracle.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
Hi All,
Please review a fix for an issue which causes arabic character "alef" to be not rendered in osx for menlo font in italic style.
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8147002
The issue was actually a regression caused by the fix to JDK-7162125:
[macosx] A font has different behaviour for ligatures depending on its creation mode in which we have added cascaded font list to find the real fonts that CFont uses, so that there is no need to use "negative" glyph code for finding the fallback fonts using the "subsititution"/"fallback" mechanism used by osx code.
However, the above logic of using cascaded font list in CFont does not take into account of using JRE provided fonts like all those Lucida* ttf in jdk/lib/fonts/, so when a glyph (in this intance, arabic 'alef' character) is intended to be rendered in Menlo font in italic style, osx will not be able to find the glyph in Menlo-Italic font and neither in all the cascaded system fonts provided by CoreText, so it results in empty box.
Before 7162125 fix, the fallback code in
CoreTextSupport.m#CTS_CopyCTFallbackFontAndGlyphForJavaGlyphCode() uses
JRSFontCreateFallbackFontForCharacters()
was adding jre/lib/fonts to the fallback list which was causing the glyph to be found in "LucidaBrightRegular.ttf" font and the glyph was rendered.
So, the proposed fix is to add jre provided font "Lucida Sans Regular"
to the cascaded list so that we get the "alef" glyph.
The reason for choosing "Lucida Sans Regular" over "Lucida Bright Regular" is, because it is the largest font file in jre and has all the glyph codepoints that no other font in the jre has, so we will not lose out on any codepoints and will help us in not getting missing glyph.
webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~psadhukhan/8147002/webrev.00/
Regards
Prasanta
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/2d-dev/attachments/20170209/4ad48b17/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2017 11:30:26 -0800
From: Philip Race <philip.race at oracle.com>
To: 2d-dev <2d-dev at openjdk.java.net>
Subject: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] RFR: 8172967: [macosx] Exception while
working with layout for text containing unmappable character
Message-ID: <589CC352.6040408 at oracle.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~prr/8172967/
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8172967
Full evaluation in the bug report.
Short summary: avoid AIOB and NPE when Mac glyph mapper returns a negated unicode which is misinterpreted as having composite font slot 255
-phil.
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 13:59:37 -0800
From: Jim Graham <james.graham at oracle.com>
To: Jayathirth D V <jayathirth.d.v at oracle.com>, Philip Race
<philip.race at oracle.com>, 2d-dev at openjdk.java.net
Subject: Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] Review Request for JDK-7107905:
ColorModel subclasses are missing hashCode() or equals() or both
methods
Message-ID: <d8c2a142-e76d-a33f-e614-bcbf3c8037cc at oracle.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
From my end this looks good. +1 except for 2 outstanding review issues:
- Would like to hear back final comments from Joe Darcy on the new doc changes/CCC request
- Phil pointed out that there is an unneeded import in some of the files. I agree that we should make a final webrev to delete them, but I don't need to approve it if that is the only change...
...jim
On 2/8/17 11:56 PM, Jayathirth D V wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> There was a closed test which was failing because of identity-as-equals approach for ColorModel equals() method.
> I have modified it and added in the webrev. Along with this we are now using colorspace.hashCode() in hashCode() functions instead of Objects.hashCode(this.colorspace). Reverted using Arrays.equals() in IndexColorModel equals() method because Arrays.copyOf() takes lot of time.
>
> Please find updated webrev for review :
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jdv/7107905/webrev.18/
>
> Ran jtreg test and JCK there are no additional test case failures because of the above change. Only 4 JCK tests are failing as it was happening previously.
>
> Just copy pasted my observation regarding JCK failures so that we can trace it easily:
>
> 1)api/java_awt/Image/ColorModel/index.html#Constructor: Failed. test
> cases: 4; passed: 3; failed: 1; first test case failure:
> ColorModel2001
>
> This test fails because getComponentSize() returned an array with length 3 but it expects the length to be 4. In the test case they have bits per component array of length 4 like {8, 8, 8, 8}. But in the test case wherever they are passing "has Alpha" as "false" we omit the alpha component bit. This is because of tighter check that we have in ColorModel class as "nBits = Arrays.copyOf(bits, numComponents);" . "numComponents" will be 3 if hasAlpha is false.
>
> 2)api/java_awt/Image/ColorModel/index.html#Equals: Failed. test cases:
> 3; passed: 2; failed: 1; first test case failure: ColorModel0004
>
> Here they check for equality between 2 ColorModel objects having same values, but it fails because now we are using identity-as-equals check in ColorModel.
>
> 3)api/java_awt/Image/ColorModel/index.html#HashCode: Failed. test
> cases: 2; passed: 1; failed: 1; first test case failure:
> ColorModel2006
>
> Here they check for hashCode equality between 2 ColorModel objects having same values, but it fails since we don't have hashCode check in ColorModel and it will be different between 2 Objects.
>
> 4)api/java_awt/Image/ComponentColorModel/index.html#ConstructorTesttes
> tCase1: Failed. test cases: 2; passed: 1; failed: 1; first test case
> failure: testCase1
>
> Throws "java.lang.ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException: 3". This is also happening because of same reason as why the first JCK test is failing. We omit alpha bit if hasAlpha is false but JCK test tries to call getComponentSize() with index 3 which throws ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException.
>
> Thanks,
> Jay
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jayathirth D V
> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2017 3:41 PM
> To: Jim Graham; Philip Race; 2d-dev at openjdk.java.net
> Subject: Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] Review Request for JDK-7107905:
> ColorModel subclasses are missing hashCode() or equals() or both
> methods
>
> Hello All,
>
> I have updated the webrev to include the following changes.
>
> 1) Have identity as equals check in equals() method of ColorModel but elaborate the specification of equals() and hashCode() in ColorModel on what properties to check in subclasses of ColorModel.
> 2) Made changes to test case to have single helper method wherever we have same equals/hashCode() check.
> 3) Updated IndexColorModel equals() method to use Arrays.equals() for rgb[] data.
> 4) Add comment on why we are not using validBits to calculate hashCode() in IndexColorModel hashCode() method.
>
> Please find updated webrev for review :
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jdv/7107905/webrev.17/
>
> Thanks,
> Jay
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Graham
> Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2017 2:51 AM
> To: Phil Race; Jayathirth D V; 2d-dev at openjdk.java.net
> Subject: Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] Review Request for JDK-7107905:
> ColorModel subclasses are missing hashCode() or equals() or both
> methods
>
> I think we should move this issue (array size returned from getCompSizes) into a separate bug entry and a separate fix.
> I don't think we need to fix the clone() in the constructor and the getter just to get hashcode/equals right...
>
> ...jim
>
> On 1/31/17 2:34 PM, Jim Graham wrote:
>> For an application to run into this same issue they'd have to expect
>> getCompSizes() to return data for components that don't exist. It's
>> unlikely they would use that data if they really understand the
>> objects. While that would be odd, I guess I can see someone might be
>> constructing all of their CM's from an array of 4 components
>> regardless of the number of actual components and we'd be happily
>> remembering the useless extra components and returning an array of 4
>> from getCompSizes(). As I said, they shouldn't really be reading and
>> interpreting those extra components for any image processing, but I can imagine that they might do something like create a variant CM by calling the CompSizes() and copying them into a new array to construct a new CM with modifications. They might just robotically always copy 4 values without really checking how many are valid. That's a stretch, and their code is weak. I can conceive of how this might happen, but I really have no idea how likely it is...
>>
>> ...jim
>>
>> On 1/30/17 3:56 PM, Phil Race wrote:
>>> Sounds like we should at least try to get the tests updated so they only test what the spec. says.
>>> Although it does indicate that there is at least a chance that
>>> application code might also fail due to similar assumptions.
>>> Does #1 not fail with the previous iteration of this change too ?
>>>
>>> -phil.
>>>
>>> On 01/30/2017 01:40 PM, Jim Graham wrote:
>>>> Hmmm. Sounds like the test cases were written based on bugs in the
>>>> implementation. I'm not sure what the best tactic is here for the
>>>> short term for getting this in, but many of these changes should eventually be considered bugs in the tests. Is it acceptable to break API tests like this at the last minute even if the tests are at fault? Phil?
>>>>
>>>> Notes on specific instances below...
>>>>
>>>> On 1/30/17 2:22 AM, Jayathirth D V wrote:
>>>>> Hi Phil,
>>>>>
>>>>> 1)api/java_awt/Image/ColorModel/index.html#Constructor: Failed.
>>>>> test cases: 4; passed: 3; failed: 1; first test case failure:
>>>>> ColorModel2001
>>>>>
>>>>> This test fails because getComponentSize() returned an array with length 3 but it expects the length to be 4. In
>>>>> the test case they have bits per component array of length 4 like {8, 8, 8, 8}. But in the test case wherever
>>>>> they are passing "has Alpha" as "false" we omit the alpha component bit. This is because of tighter check that we
>>>>> have in ColorModel class as "nBits = Arrays.copyOf(bits,
>>>>> numComponents);" . "numComponents" will be 3 if hasAlpha is false.
>>>>
>>>> This is a bug in the test then, especially if the size of our array matches the return value of getNumComponents.
>>>>
>>>>> 2)api/java_awt/Image/ColorModel/index.html#Equals: Failed.
>>>>> test
>>>>> cases: 3; passed: 2; failed: 1; first test case
>>>>> failure: ColorModel0004
>>>>>
>>>>> Here they check for equality between 2 ColorModel objects
>>>>> having same values, but it fails because now we are using identity-as-equals check in ColorModel.
>>>>
>>>> How do they accomplish this when the CM class is abstract? Do they
>>>> create a relatively empty subclass and instantiate that?
>>>>
>>>> The documentation for the equals() method does not document the
>>>> conditions under which it returns true, it uses a vague concept of "equals this ColorModel". I don't see how they could test anything given that documentation.
>>>>
>>>>> 3)api/java_awt/Image/ColorModel/index.html#HashCode: Failed.
>>>>> test cases: 2; passed: 1; failed: 1; first test case
>>>>> failure: ColorModel2006
>>>>>
>>>>> Here they check for hashCode equality between 2 ColorModel objects having same values, but it fails since we
>>>>> don't have hashCode check in ColorModel and it will be different between 2 Objects.
>>>>
>>>> Same as above, there are no promises documented.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 4)api/java_awt/Image/ComponentColorModel/index.html#ConstructorTes
>>>>> t
>>>>> testCase1: Failed. test cases: 2; passed: 1;
>>>>> failed: 1; first test case failure: testCase1
>>>>>
>>>>> Throws "java.lang.ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException: 3". This is also happening because of same reason as why the
>>>>> first JCK test is failing. We omit alpha bit if hasAlpha is false but JCK test tries to call getComponentSize()
>>>>> with index 3 which throws ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException.
>>>>
>>>> Same assessment as #1 above...
>>>>
>>>> Again, while these are my recommendations about the correctness of
>>>> these tests, the question remains whether we want to introduce a
>>>> change at this point in the release cycle that will essentially invalidate a number of tests that have been working for several releases already. I'll leave that tactic issue to Phil...
>>>>
>>>> ...jim
>>>>
>>>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 14:05:24 -0800
From: Phil Race <philip.race at oracle.com>
To: Jim Graham <james.graham at oracle.com>, Jayathirth D V
<jayathirth.d.v at oracle.com>, 2d-dev at openjdk.java.net
Subject: Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] Review Request for JDK-7107905:
ColorModel subclasses are missing hashCode() or equals() or both
methods
Message-ID: <78dab679-6b22-ea05-5418-67528881b960 at oracle.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; Format="flowed"
Oh .. my reply was to an off-list email. I did not notice that.
So I should repeat that here :
On 2/9/17 12:38 PM, Phil Race wrote:
> 32 import java.util.Objects;
>
> This is now un-used, isn't it ? Yet all 3 subclasses still have this
> import.
>
> I don't need to "approve" a new webrev containing that but it would be
> good to publish one.
>
> +1
-phil.
On 02/09/2017 01:59 PM, Jim Graham wrote:
> From my end this looks good. +1 except for 2 outstanding review issues:
>
> - Would like to hear back final comments from Joe Darcy on the new doc
> changes/CCC request
> - Phil pointed out that there is an unneeded import in some of the
> files. I agree that we should make a final webrev to delete them, but
> I don't need to approve it if that is the only change...
>
> ...jim
>
> On 2/8/17 11:56 PM, Jayathirth D V wrote:
>> Hello All,
>>
>> There was a closed test which was failing because of
>> identity-as-equals approach for ColorModel equals() method.
>> I have modified it and added in the webrev. Along with this we are
>> now using colorspace.hashCode() in hashCode() functions instead of
>> Objects.hashCode(this.colorspace). Reverted using Arrays.equals() in
>> IndexColorModel equals() method because Arrays.copyOf() takes lot of
>> time.
>>
>> Please find updated webrev for review :
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jdv/7107905/webrev.18/
>>
>> Ran jtreg test and JCK there are no additional test case failures
>> because of the above change. Only 4 JCK tests are failing as it was
>> happening previously.
>>
>> Just copy pasted my observation regarding JCK failures so that we can
>> trace it easily:
>>
>> 1)api/java_awt/Image/ColorModel/index.html#Constructor: Failed. test
>> cases: 4; passed: 3; failed: 1; first test case failure:
>> ColorModel2001
>>
>> This test fails because getComponentSize() returned an array with
>> length 3 but it expects the length to be 4. In the test case they
>> have bits per component array of length 4 like {8, 8, 8, 8}. But
>> in the test case wherever they are passing "has Alpha" as "false" we
>> omit the alpha component bit. This is because of tighter check
>> that we have in ColorModel class as "nBits = Arrays.copyOf(bits,
>> numComponents);" . "numComponents" will be 3 if hasAlpha is false.
>>
>> 2)api/java_awt/Image/ColorModel/index.html#Equals: Failed. test
>> cases: 3; passed: 2; failed: 1; first test case failure:
>> ColorModel0004
>>
>> Here they check for equality between 2 ColorModel objects having
>> same values, but it fails because now we are using identity-as-equals
>> check in ColorModel.
>>
>> 3)api/java_awt/Image/ColorModel/index.html#HashCode: Failed. test
>> cases: 2; passed: 1; failed: 1; first test case failure:
>> ColorModel2006
>>
>> Here they check for hashCode equality between 2 ColorModel
>> objects having same values, but it fails since we don't have hashCode
>> check in ColorModel and it will be different between 2 Objects.
>>
>> 4)api/java_awt/Image/ComponentColorModel/index.html#ConstructorTesttestCase1:
>> Failed. test cases: 2; passed: 1; failed: 1; first test case failure:
>> testCase1
>>
>> Throws "java.lang.ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException: 3". This is
>> also happening because of same reason as why the first JCK test is
>> failing. We omit alpha bit if hasAlpha is false but JCK test
>> tries to call getComponentSize() with index 3 which throws
>> ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jay
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jayathirth D V
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2017 3:41 PM
>> To: Jim Graham; Philip Race; 2d-dev at openjdk.java.net
>> Subject: Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] Review Request for JDK-7107905:
>> ColorModel subclasses are missing hashCode() or equals() or both
>> methods
>>
>> Hello All,
>>
>> I have updated the webrev to include the following changes.
>>
>> 1) Have identity as equals check in equals() method of ColorModel
>> but elaborate the specification of equals() and hashCode() in
>> ColorModel on what properties to check in subclasses of
>> ColorModel.
>> 2) Made changes to test case to have single helper method
>> wherever we have same equals/hashCode() check.
>> 3) Updated IndexColorModel equals() method to use Arrays.equals()
>> for rgb[] data.
>> 4) Add comment on why we are not using validBits to calculate
>> hashCode() in IndexColorModel hashCode() method.
>>
>> Please find updated webrev for review :
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jdv/7107905/webrev.17/
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jay
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jim Graham
>> Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2017 2:51 AM
>> To: Phil Race; Jayathirth D V; 2d-dev at openjdk.java.net
>> Subject: Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] Review Request for JDK-7107905:
>> ColorModel subclasses are missing hashCode() or equals() or both
>> methods
>>
>> I think we should move this issue (array size returned from
>> getCompSizes) into a separate bug entry and a separate fix.
>> I don't think we need to fix the clone() in the constructor and the
>> getter just to get hashcode/equals right...
>>
>> ...jim
>>
>> On 1/31/17 2:34 PM, Jim Graham wrote:
>>> For an application to run into this same issue they'd have to expect
>>> getCompSizes() to return data for components that don't exist. It's
>>> unlikely they would use that data if they really understand the
>>> objects. While that would be odd, I guess I can see someone might
>>> be constructing all of their CM's from an array of 4 components
>>> regardless of the number of actual components and we'd be happily
>>> remembering the useless extra components and returning an array of 4
>>> from getCompSizes(). As I said, they shouldn't really be reading
>>> and interpreting those extra components for any image processing,
>>> but I can imagine that they might do something like create a variant
>>> CM by calling the CompSizes() and copying them into a new array to
>>> construct a new CM with modifications. They might just robotically
>>> always copy 4 values without really checking how many are valid.
>>> That's a stretch, and their code is weak. I can conceive of how
>>> this might happen, but I really have no idea how likely it is...
>>>
>>> ...jim
>>>
>>> On 1/30/17 3:56 PM, Phil Race wrote:
>>>> Sounds like we should at least try to get the tests updated so they
>>>> only test what the spec. says.
>>>> Although it does indicate that there is at least a chance that
>>>> application code might also fail due to similar assumptions.
>>>> Does #1 not fail with the previous iteration of this change too ?
>>>>
>>>> -phil.
>>>>
>>>> On 01/30/2017 01:40 PM, Jim Graham wrote:
>>>>> Hmmm. Sounds like the test cases were written based on bugs in
>>>>> the implementation. I'm not sure what the best tactic is here for
>>>>> the short term for getting this in, but many of these changes
>>>>> should eventually be considered bugs in the tests. Is it
>>>>> acceptable to break API tests like this at the last minute even if
>>>>> the tests are at fault? Phil?
>>>>>
>>>>> Notes on specific instances below...
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1/30/17 2:22 AM, Jayathirth D V wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Phil,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1)api/java_awt/Image/ColorModel/index.html#Constructor: Failed.
>>>>>> test cases: 4; passed: 3; failed: 1; first test case failure:
>>>>>> ColorModel2001
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This test fails because getComponentSize() returned an array
>>>>>> with length 3 but it expects the length to be 4. In
>>>>>> the test case they have bits per component array of length 4
>>>>>> like {8, 8, 8, 8}. But in the test case wherever they are passing
>>>>>> "has Alpha" as "false" we omit the alpha
>>>>>> component bit. This is because of tighter check that we
>>>>>> have in ColorModel class as "nBits = Arrays.copyOf(bits,
>>>>>> numComponents);" . "numComponents" will be 3 if hasAlpha is false.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a bug in the test then, especially if the size of our
>>>>> array matches the return value of getNumComponents.
>>>>>
>>>>>> 2)api/java_awt/Image/ColorModel/index.html#Equals: Failed. test
>>>>>> cases: 3; passed: 2; failed: 1; first test case
>>>>>> failure: ColorModel0004
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here they check for equality between 2 ColorModel objects
>>>>>> having same values, but it fails because now we are using
>>>>>> identity-as-equals check in ColorModel.
>>>>>
>>>>> How do they accomplish this when the CM class is abstract? Do
>>>>> they create a relatively empty subclass and instantiate that?
>>>>>
>>>>> The documentation for the equals() method does not document the
>>>>> conditions under which it returns true, it uses a vague concept of
>>>>> "equals this ColorModel". I don't see how they could test
>>>>> anything given that documentation.
>>>>>
>>>>>> 3)api/java_awt/Image/ColorModel/index.html#HashCode: Failed.
>>>>>> test cases: 2; passed: 1; failed: 1; first test case
>>>>>> failure: ColorModel2006
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here they check for hashCode equality between 2 ColorModel
>>>>>> objects having same values, but it fails since we
>>>>>> don't have hashCode check in ColorModel and it will be
>>>>>> different between 2 Objects.
>>>>>
>>>>> Same as above, there are no promises documented.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 4)api/java_awt/Image/ComponentColorModel/index.html#ConstructorTe
>>>>>> st
>>>>>> testCase1: Failed. test cases: 2; passed: 1;
>>>>>> failed: 1; first test case failure: testCase1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Throws "java.lang.ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException: 3". This is
>>>>>> also happening because of same reason as why the first JCK test
>>>>>> is failing. We omit alpha bit if hasAlpha is false but JCK test
>>>>>> tries to call getComponentSize() with index 3 which throws
>>>>>> ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException.
>>>>>
>>>>> Same assessment as #1 above...
>>>>>
>>>>> Again, while these are my recommendations about the correctness of
>>>>> these tests, the question remains whether we want to introduce a
>>>>> change at this point in the release cycle that will essentially
>>>>> invalidate a number of tests that have been working for several
>>>>> releases already. I'll leave that tactic issue to Phil...
>>>>>
>>>>> ...jim
>>>>>
>>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/2d-dev/attachments/20170209/c71a98ce/attachment.html>
End of 2d-dev Digest, Vol 117, Issue 3
**************************************
More information about the 2d-dev
mailing list