RFR: 8370945: With Windows LAF, the location of a JMenuItem icon is incorrect

[Alexey Ivanov]

On Tue, 17 Feb 2026 11:43:12 GMT, Prasanta Sadhukhan <psadhukhan at openjdk.org> wrote:

> I dont think we can align normal JMenuItem icon location with JRadioButtonMenuItem/JCheckBoxMenuItem icon location.
> The latter needs a two column layout while normal JMenuItem as in this case needs 1 column as was asked in this JBS so the icon is left aligned for normal JMenuItem so it's expected change as far I am concerned.

Why can't we?

Both Metal and Nimbus perfect align them. See [the screenshots](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/23324#issuecomment-3008593168) I posted in #23324 for [JDK-8348760](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8348760).
![JMenu layout with radio bullets, check marks and icons in Metal Look-and-Feel](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/65c5b4bb-dc3b-46dd-a74a-2cb6ef53ccc9)

Why can't Windows L&F?

The entire popup menu has to have a consistent layout, and that layout should be performed by `DefaultMenuLayout` and `MenuItemLayoutHelper` with minimal (preferably no tweaks) from the menu item UI itself.

At this time, Windows L&F implementation does *too much tweaking*, which comes from how icons were implemented in Windows L&F, specifically the check mark or bullet were hidden if a `JCheckBoxMenuItem` or `JRadioButtonMenuItem` had an icon. After JDK-8348760, the check mark or bullet and the icon are two separate entities that have to be handled separately.

This is why `VistaMenuItemCheckIcon` needs revising and likely dropping altogether. [I said it already](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/28889#discussion_r2694197701) in #28889:

> Is it because Windows icons used to be special and combined the icon and check mark / bullet mark, or rather replaced the check mark / bullet mark with the icon? Should we get rid of that special treatment?
>
> … Both Metal and Nimbus L&F have similar column layouts where a separate column is allocated for marks and icons, Windows L&F should re-use that code.

And now it comes up again.

-------------

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/29730#issuecomment-3914455950