<AWT Dev> RfR JDK-8055160

[Pete Brunet]

Note that I need to remove the import of java.io.PrintWriter in
java.awt.Toolkit.java

On 6/10/15 5:33 PM, Pete Brunet wrote:
> Due to some other priorities it's been over 2 months since the last
> webrev.  An update is here:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ptbrunet/JDK-8055160/webrev.03
>
> The changes from webrev.02 are:
>
> 1) The test was changed to not use the service provider to test the
> activation of the service provider.  Instead a file is created when
> Toolkit.getDefaultToolkit activates providers and tested for existence
> when the test runs.
>
> 2) The copyright header in the new jdk.accessibility files were fixed.
>
> Pete
>  
> On 4/3/15 3:59 PM, Pete Brunet wrote:
>> Due to the recent push of JDK-8076182 (Open source Java Access
>> Bridge) which exposed some files that were in closed the webrev needs
>> a full re-review.  I've also made the changes requested by Mandy.
>>
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ptbrunet/JDK-8055160/webrev.02/
>>
>> Pete
>>
>> On 3/23/15 4:41 PM, Mandy Chung wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/19/2015 6:03 PM, Pete Brunet wrote:
>>>> A new webrev is available at
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ptbrunet/JDK-8055160/webrev.01/
>>>>
>>>
>>> line 820-821: this comment is incorrect. 
>>>
>>> line 831-838: what happens if ServiceConfigurationException thrown
>>> or any exception is thrown by the activate method?  This should wrap
>>> with AWTError as I mentioned in my previous review comment.  This
>>> was hidden with the test (see below).
>>>
>>> line 891-901: this example may not be necessary as the service
>>> loader documentation should cover it.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The changes to the tests are:
>>>> - added an unused provider
>>>> - added a test activating two providers
>>>>
>>>> Mandy, Regarding the last bullet I'm not sure I resolved your
>>>> comment, "For the test, since you support multiple providers,
>>>> perhaps good to add one more test case to activate two providers
>>>> and load two providers but only one is activated."  If not, please
>>>> let me know.
>>>
>>> Almost.   For Foo, Bar providers, their activate method throwing
>>> RuntimeException actually stops loading the second provider.  The
>>> activate method could perhaps update some static field defined in
>>> the Load class if it's called (perhaps adding its name) so that you
>>> can tell whether the expected providers are activated. 
>>> UnusedProvider throwing RuntimeException is good since you don't
>>> expect it's activated.
>>>
>>> Otherwise, looks good.
>>>
>>> Mandy
>>
>