8035782 : sun/launcher/LauncherHelper$FXHelper loaded unnecessarily

[David DeHaven]

Do we care about the 1 in more than 80 trillion case where the third party Main-Class would be named "LauncherHelper$FXHelper"? I think the probability is extremely unlikely so I'm fine with it the way it's written.


LauncherHelper.java:
590         return;

Redundant return statement?

-DrD-


> For completeness the bugid line needs the bugid as shown, otherwise SQE will open
> another bug to have you fix this.
> 
> -26  * @bug 8001533 8004547
> +26  * @bug 8001533 8004547 8035782
> 
> other than that it looks good, I can push this with the above change.
> 
> Anyone else have any concerns with this change before I push ?
> 
> Thanks
> Kumar
> 
> 
> On 4/30/2014 1:47 PM, Neil Toda wrote:
>> 
>> Please review Launcher change and test.
>> 
>> I've added to the Launcher test : FXLauncherTest.java
>> The test will now check that LauncherHelper$FXHelper is not loaded for non-JavaFX class and jar files.
>> 
>> webrev.02 contains only review suggestions from webrev.01 and the new test class.
>> 
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ntoda/8035782/webrev.02/
>> 
>> for bug:
>> 
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8035782
>> 
>> Thanks
>> 
>> -neil
>> 
>> 
>