<AWT Dev> [9] Review Request: 6815345 java.awt.Component.createImage(int width, int height) should remove behavioral optionality

[Sergey Bylokhov]

On 24.09.15 20:16, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
>
> On 9/24/2015 7:42 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
>> On 24.09.15 18:38, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/24/2015 4:58 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
>>>> The new version of the fix:
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~serb/6815345/webrev.05
>>> You assumption can be broken with the next
>>>
>>> AWTAccessor.getComponentAccessor().setPeer(jbutton1,
>>>                  new ButtonPeer() {
>>>                      ...
>>>                      @Override
>>>                      public Image createImage(int width, int height) {
>>>                          return new BufferedImage(width, height,
>>> BufferedImage.TYPE_INT_RGB);
>>>                      }
>>>                      ...
>>>                  });
>>
>> AWTAccessor is unspecified thing, it is a safer version of reflection
>> which can break lots of things if used incorrectly. This api is for
>> internal use only.
>>
>>>
>>> Maybe it would be better to write about peer=null in the method spec?
>>
>> peer is a private field it cannot be mentioned in the specification.
>>
>> Or
>>> not to be that direct and leave the initial phrase mentioning
>>> isHeadless()?
>>
>   I read this article:
> http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/articles/javase/headless-136834.html.
> As I understand peer is not strictly disabled for the headless mode,

The native peers are disabled in such configurations.

> because some native resources like fonts, printing and images can be
> used. In headless mode peer#getImage()/getVolatileImage() can be used to
> construct native images, so they must not return null.

The peers is just some internal utility classes, they can return 
anything they want. But if we pass/return results of the call to the 
peer, we should follow the public specification. In this case the public 
spec states that we should return null in headless, so all peers which 
are used in headless (like NullComponentPeer) should return null. And in 
the same time all hw peers should return non-null value in heedful mode.

Maybe
> Component#getImage() implementation should simply check for isHeadless()
> and return null?
>
> You specified isHeadless()=true that describes the whole environment.


This is not me. Even before the fix the specification of these methods 
mention that they always return null in the headless environment. This 
fix change the first sentence about displayable components(according to 
the current behavior) and also synchronize the spec between 
createVolatileImage(also according current behavior) methods.


> Why isHeadlessInstance()=true is not mentioned?What if the whole
> environment is not headless but this component's graphics is headless?

I guess this is because the first method was added first.

>
> And more global question: Why should we disable the creating of
> component image buffer for the headless mode?It could be used for the
> same performance reason as in non-headless.

in the headless mode we cannot create most of the hw components, 
actually non of top level window can be created. And for lw components 
like in swing the one global buffer is used in the RepaintManager.

>>
>>>>
>>>> The headless case is covered, heavyweight components cannot be created
>>>> in such mode, so only lightweight buttons are checked.
>>>>
>>>> On 24.09.15 15:58, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 9/24/2015 3:25 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
>>>>>> On 24.09.15 11:36, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Sergey,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   isHeadless()=true must return null. If so please add the
>>>>>>> corresponding
>>>>>>> test case. It is not not obvious from the code.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> isHeadless()=true is headless mode where the frames are always not
>>>>>> displayable, so everything is similar to the current test except that
>>>>>> in headless the pack() will be throw an exception and second part of
>>>>>> the test in this mode is unnecessary.
>>>>> Then maybe simply do not call pack() for the headless test?
>>>>> Okay, let me rephrase what I meant. Since isHeadless()=true case is
>>>>> mentioned in those 3 specs so explicitly it must be guarantied that
>>>>> the
>>>>> specified behavior works for the case as described.  I cannot trace
>>>>> the
>>>>> result by reading the code of the createImage(), isHeadless()
>>>>> method is
>>>>> not even called there.  So the test case should be added. Or you could
>>>>> remove isHeadless() references from the specs. Or write something like
>>>>> "the result is non-deterministic if isHeadless() is not false..."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --Semyon
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 9/23/2015 9:14 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hello.
>>>>>>>> Please review the fix for jdk9.
>>>>>>>> The specification is updated as suggested in JDK-6186530 and
>>>>>>>> JDK-6815345. The test is added to prove that we always return null
>>>>>>>> when the component is not displayable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ccc request will be created after the technical review. One
>>>>>>>> additional
>>>>>>>> bug filed https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8137047
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-6815345
>>>>>>>> Webrev can be found at:
>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~serb/6815345/webrev.04
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>


-- 
Best regards, Sergey.