<AWT Dev> [9] Review request for 7081580: Specification for MouseInfo.getNumberOfButtons() doesn't contain info about "awt.mouse.numButtons"

[Phil Race]

But going back to my first question, why does the app need to know about the
mouseButtons property if there's a method ?  I am not sure what we - or the
user - gain by documenting it.

If it was a "standard property" then it might make sense to list it on 
that page
but if its only purpose is as how the implementation communicates 
internally,
why expose it ?

-phil.


On 3/17/2015 4:48 PM, Phil Race wrote:
> OK .. yes, it does say that. So there is no central place to find all 
> supported
> desktop properties ?
>
> -phil.
>
> On 3/17/2015 4:37 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
>> Hi, Phil.
>> This document is for " desktop properties supported by the AWT but 
>> not documented elsewhere - typically because there is no suitable 
>> method or class - are documented here."
>>
>> 17.03.15 16:28, Phil Race wrote:
>>> Unless you intend to document that property here :-
>>> http://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/awt/doc-files/DesktopProperties.html 
>>>
>>>
>>> maybe it should not be mentioned ..
>>>
>>> -phil.
>>>
>>> On 3/17/2015 4:16 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> 16.03.15 7:32, Anton V. Tarasov wrote:
>>>>> Hi Semyon,
>>>>>
>>>>> As a minimalistic description of the property, this looks ok to 
>>>>> me. So, if there's nothing else to say about it, I'm fine with the 
>>>>> fix.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Anton.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 16.03.2015 16:22, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
>>>>>> Hi!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you Anton!
>>>>>> The updated webrev is: 
>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~alexsch/semyon-sadetsky/7081580/webrev.01/ 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --Semyon
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/12/2015 1:42 PM, Anton V. Tarasov wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Semyon, Sergey,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I agree with that the modified javadoc is not good.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. When you say something is done "by calling A.b()", it means I 
>>>>>>> can write exactly "A.b()" in my code and this will do the job. 
>>>>>>> However, that's not the case with Toolkit.getDesktopProperty() 
>>>>>>> (it won't be compiled).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In order to refer to a method, you can use either of the 
>>>>>>> following constructions:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> a) the A.b() method
>>>>>>> b) {@link A#b}
>>>>>>> c) the {@link A#b} method
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> b/c is preferrable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. When you say "The value is obtained by calling something", 
>>>>>>> it's not quite clear what or who obtains the value. The method 
>>>>>>> itself? Or this is an alternative way to get it for a user?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3. If this is the only place in the spec where the property is 
>>>>>>> introduced, then you should somehow reflect this fact. For 
>>>>>>> instance, like this:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The value is set by the "awt.mouse.numButtons" property, which 
>>>>>>> can be obtained directly with the {@link 
>>>>>>> Toolkit#getDesktopProperty} method.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You don't have to _specify_ the way getNumberOfButtons() obtains 
>>>>>>> the property, unless this implementation detail should really be 
>>>>>>> specified. (For instance, if it was obtained by a method which 
>>>>>>> could be overriden in an application.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Anton.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 12.03.2015 11:42, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
>>>>>>>> Sorry, Sergey. Still don't understand what you mean.
>>>>>>>> The issue is about*to do**mention* "awt.mouse.numButtons".
>>>>>>>> Now you are saying that there is no value to mention it for the 
>>>>>>>> first time in this spec. Doesn't it contradict to the request 
>>>>>>>> itself?
>>>>>>>> You couldn't be more specific on what do you want, could you?
>>>>>>>> The fix just adds one short statement to the spec. Maybe you'll 
>>>>>>>> find it to be more productive to just rephrase as you want and 
>>>>>>>> write here.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thank you!
>>>>>>>> --Semyon
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 3/12/2015 11:11 AM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi, Semyon.
>>>>>>>>> That's a specification which should be read as written. But if 
>>>>>>>>> you mean this is not the same things, then it is unclear what 
>>>>>>>>> value will be added to the description of 
>>>>>>>>> "awt.mouse.numButtons" property, which mentions in the 
>>>>>>>>> specification for the first time. Since getNumberOfButtons 
>>>>>>>>> obtain something not specified from the getToolkit, modify it 
>>>>>>>>> somehow(w/o specification) and returns. See for example 
>>>>>>>>> Toolkit.getToolkit and Toolkit. areExtraMouseButtonsEnabled(). 
>>>>>>>>> It is not necessary write so specific specification but at 
>>>>>>>>> least it should be clear.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It would be good to rephrase it somehow.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 12.03.15 0:09, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Sergey,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I didn't find any mention in the new text that the method 
>>>>>>>>>> returns the same value as Tolkit.get... returns.
>>>>>>>>>> I'm not an expert in English but in my opinion "obtained by" 
>>>>>>>>>> verb doesn't state that the same value is returned without 
>>>>>>>>>> any handling.
>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you've mixed it up with "proxy"?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>> --Semyon
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/12/2015 9:47 AM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Semyon.
>>>>>>>>>>> The fix in general is correct, but it adds an assertion that 
>>>>>>>>>>> this method should return the same values as Toolkit.get...
>>>>>>>>>>> And this is incorrect, and we can get a new CR that 
>>>>>>>>>>> implementation don't follow the specification. Probably we 
>>>>>>>>>>> can simplify it and state that we use numeric value from 
>>>>>>>>>>> desktop property or something like that?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 11.03.15 22:52, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> please review fix for jdk9.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Webrev: 
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~alexsch/semyon-sadetsky/7081580/webrev.00/ 
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-7081580
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>> --Semyon
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>> Best regards, Sergey.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Best regards, Sergey.
>>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Best regards, Sergey.
>