From chien.yang at oracle.com Wed Mar 1 16:27:51 2017 From: chien.yang at oracle.com (Chien Yang) Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2017 08:27:51 -0800 Subject: [9] Code Review Request For 8163384: Fix doclint errors and warnings in javafx.graphics module In-Reply-To: <58B60F09.1040800@oracle.com> References: <74283999-7c95-3a7d-5f87-99354e74163f@oracle.com> <58B60F09.1040800@oracle.com> Message-ID: <58B6F687.90602@oracle.com> Hi Jonathan, Thanks for the valuable recommendations! I will make corrections based on this list. Please send me additional recommendations if you have more. Thanks, - Chien On 2/28/17, 4:00 PM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote: > Chien, > > It's good to see these issues being addressed. I've browsed maybe a > third of the files, enough to see some common patterns that you might > want to address. The most prevalent comment is issues with > combinations of
, {@code}, {@literal}, and entities, but I'm also 
> seeing empty descriptions for methods, and empty alt text for images 
> as well.
>
> Providing empty alt="" for images is not really living up to the 
> intent of the Accessibility Guidelines.
> See https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/H37.html
>
> There are some places, e.g.
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ckyang/JDK-8163384/webrev.00/modules/javafx.graphics/src/main/java/javafx/concurrent/Service.java.sdiff.html 
>
> where it might be more convenient to use a multi-line {@code } block, 
> rather than use entities for awkward characters in the code.
> In general, the use of 
...
should be > considered an anti-pattern. Consider using
{@code ... }
> instead. > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ckyang/JDK-8163384/webrev.00/modules/javafx.graphics/src/main/java/javafx/css/CssMetaData.java.sdiff.html > > line 59, use
{@code
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ckyang/JDK-8163384/webrev.00/modules/javafx.graphics/src/main/java/javafx/css/Size.java.sdiff.html 
>
> Missing method comments. e.g. line 45, 53
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ckyang/JDK-8163384/webrev.00/modules/javafx.graphics/src/main/java/javafx/css/StyleConverter.java.sdiff.html 
>
> line 66, Don't use entities inside {@code}
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ckyang/JDK-8163384/webrev.00/modules/javafx.graphics/src/main/java/javafx/css/StyleConverter.java.sdiff.html 
>
> line 186: Weird mix of  and {@literal}.  Just use {@code}.
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ckyang/JDK-8163384/webrev.00/modules/javafx.graphics/src/main/java/javafx/css/StyleConverter.java.sdiff.html 
>
> More methods with no descriptions
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ckyang/JDK-8163384/webrev.00/modules/javafx.graphics/src/main/java/javafx/css/StyleablePropertyFactory.java.sdiff.html 
>
> Use 
{@code
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ckyang/JDK-8163384/webrev.00/modules/javafx.graphics/src/main/java/javafx/css/StyleablePropertyFactory.java.sdiff.html 
>
> line 550: 
{@code} is more idiomatic than 
{@literal
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ckyang/JDK-8163384/webrev.00/modules/javafx.graphics/src/main/java/javafx/css/StyleablePropertyFactory.java.sdiff.html 
>
> There are many instances in the file where a pattern like 
> "CssMetaData<S, Enum>" might be better written with an enclosing 
> {@code } or {@literal.
>
> -- Jon
>
> On 02/28/2017 03:00 PM, Chien Yang wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Please review the proposed fix.
>>
>> JIRA: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8163384
>>
>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ckyang/JDK-8163384/webrev.00/
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> - Chien
>>
>

From adam at adamish.com  Fri Mar  3 11:16:51 2017
From: adam at adamish.com (adam at adamish.com)
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2017 03:16:51 -0800
Subject: SwingNode black content ... still a problem
Message-ID: <683413cacc0bb64cc2480607328a3512c53d46b0@webmail.adamish.com>

https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8097328 is marked as
resolved...

However, using jdk-8u121-windows-i586 on Windows 7 I still see the
same issue. Black content in Swing Node until repaint is forced, for
example by dragging the window off-screen and on-screen again...
I also saw same issue with 8u40

The simplest case I come up with for this:

??? public static void main(String[] args) {
??????? launch(args);
??? }

??? @Override
??? public void start(Stage primaryStage) throws Exception {
??????? SwingNode swingNode = new SwingNode();
??????? SwingUtilities.invokeAndWait(() -> {
??????????? swingNode.setContent(createSwingContent());
??????? });
??????? VBox vBox = new VBox(new Label("Fx content"), new
HBox(swingNode));
??????? primaryStage.setScene(new Scene(vBox));
??????? primaryStage.setWidth(300);
??????? primaryStage.setHeight(300);
??????? primaryStage.show();
??? }

??? private JComponent createSwingContent() {
??????? JPanel panel = new JPanel();
??????? panel.add(new JLabel("Swing content"));
??????? return panel;
??? }



From victor.drozdov at oracle.com  Fri Mar  3 18:08:13 2017
From: victor.drozdov at oracle.com (Victor Drozdov)
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2017 21:08:13 +0300
Subject: [9] Review request: JDK-8089548: [parfait] Memory leak in
 rt/modules/fxpackager/src/main/native/library/common/
Message-ID: 

Chris,

Please review the changes related with parfait warnings. See my comments 
in JBS.

JIRA: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8089548
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vdrozdov/JDK-8089548/webrev.00/

--Victor


From kevin.rushforth at oracle.com  Fri Mar  3 22:29:14 2017
From: kevin.rushforth at oracle.com (Kevin Rushforth)
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2017 14:29:14 -0800
Subject: [9] Review request: 8170701: Update FXML documentation for
 setAccessible
Message-ID: <58B9EE3A.5050408@oracle.com>

Please review the following to update the FXML docs to document the 
requirement for a module that annotates non-public members with @FXML to 
"open" the containing package to the javafx.fxml module.

https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8170701
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8170701/webrev.00/

-- Kevin


From kevin.rushforth at oracle.com  Fri Mar  3 22:35:34 2017
From: kevin.rushforth at oracle.com (Kevin Rushforth)
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2017 14:35:34 -0800
Subject: [9] Review request: 
Message-ID: <58B9EFB6.7080701@oracle.com>

Please review the following to document that javafx.graphics needs 
explicit access to the Application class.

https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8170702
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8170702/webrev.00/

-- Kevin


From kevin.rushforth at oracle.com  Fri Mar  3 22:36:31 2017
From: kevin.rushforth at oracle.com (Kevin Rushforth)
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2017 14:36:31 -0800
Subject: [9] Review request: 8170702: Document that javafx.graphics needs
 explicit access to application main class
In-Reply-To: <58B9EFB6.7080701@oracle.com>
References: <58B9EFB6.7080701@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <58B9EFEF.5060906@oracle.com>

[fixed subject line]

Please review the following to document that javafx.graphics needs 
explicit access to the Application class.

https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8170702
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8170702/webrev.00/

-- Kevin

From mandy.chung at oracle.com  Sat Mar  4 00:08:21 2017
From: mandy.chung at oracle.com (Mandy Chung)
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2017 00:08:21 +0000
Subject: [9] Review request: 8170701: Update FXML documentation for
 setAccessible
In-Reply-To: <58B9EE3A.5050408@oracle.com>
References: <58B9EE3A.5050408@oracle.com>
Message-ID: 


> On Mar 3, 2017, at 10:29 PM, Kevin Rushforth  wrote:
> 
> Please review the following to update the FXML docs to document the requirement for a module that annotates non-public members with @FXML to "open" the containing package to the javafx.fxml module.
> 
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8170701
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8170701/webrev.00/

The doc change looks fine to me.

Minor suggestion.  You may refer "module-info class? to {@link ModuleDescriptor} which can be synthesized (although it may not be common).

You may consider referencing {@link Module#isOpened} where you may say ?the containing package of the object is {@link Module#isOpened opened} to {@code javafx.fxml} module.

Mandy

From mandy.chung at oracle.com  Sat Mar  4 00:17:31 2017
From: mandy.chung at oracle.com (Mandy Chung)
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2017 00:17:31 +0000
Subject: [9] Review request: 8170702: Document that javafx.graphics needs
 explicit access to application main class
In-Reply-To: <58B9EFEF.5060906@oracle.com>
References: <58B9EFB6.7080701@oracle.com> <58B9EFEF.5060906@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <7DD1849D-C5DA-4007-BBBD-32DADB931FB0@oracle.com>


> On Mar 3, 2017, at 10:36 PM, Kevin Rushforth  wrote:
> 
> [fixed subject line]
> 
> Please review the following to document that javafx.graphics needs explicit access to the Application class.
> 
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8170702
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8170702/webrev.00/

  69  * containing package must be {@link Module#isExported(String,Module) exported}

@linkplain instead?

 239         StackTraceElement[] cause = Thread.currentThread().getStackTrace();

Good candidate to use StackWalker API.

Is @throws RuntimeException an existing behavior?  I?d think CNFE and InaccessibleAE might be more appropriate.

line 209 ?It must be a subclass of Application or a RuntimeException will be thrown.?

I think this statement should be extended to cover if the class and its constructor are public and exported.

Mandy

From kevin.rushforth at oracle.com  Sat Mar  4 00:51:53 2017
From: kevin.rushforth at oracle.com (Kevin Rushforth)
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2017 16:51:53 -0800
Subject: [9] Review request: 8176167: Point to JDK 9 EA docs when building
 FX 9 docs
Message-ID: <58BA0FA9.70904@oracle.com>

Dave,

Please review the following to point to the right place when we have a 
link to a JDK API when building the FX javadocs:

https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8176167

The one-line diff is in the bug report:

-- Kevin


From kevin.rushforth at oracle.com  Sat Mar  4 01:04:53 2017
From: kevin.rushforth at oracle.com (Kevin Rushforth)
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2017 17:04:53 -0800
Subject: [9] Review request: 8170702: Document that javafx.graphics needs
 explicit access to application main class
In-Reply-To: <7DD1849D-C5DA-4007-BBBD-32DADB931FB0@oracle.com>
References: <58B9EFB6.7080701@oracle.com> <58B9EFEF.5060906@oracle.com>
 <7DD1849D-C5DA-4007-BBBD-32DADB931FB0@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <58BA12B5.3040801@oracle.com>



Mandy Chung wrote:
>> On Mar 3, 2017, at 10:36 PM, Kevin Rushforth  wrote:
>>
>> [fixed subject line]
>>
>> Please review the following to document that javafx.graphics needs explicit access to the Application class.
>>
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8170702
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8170702/webrev.00/
>>     
>
>   69  * containing package must be {@link Module#isExported(String,Module) exported}
>
> @linkplain instead?
>   

I was following the pattern in Module.java, etc., which uses a regular 
@link in similar cases.

>  239         StackTraceElement[] cause = Thread.currentThread().getStackTrace();
>
> Good candidate to use StackWalker API.
>   

This is pre-existing code (since JDK 7), and I don't want to change the 
implementation this late while fixing a doc bug. I will file a follow-on 
bug to consider improving this for JDK 10.

> Is @throws RuntimeException an existing behavior?  I?d think CNFE and InaccessibleAE might be more appropriate.
>   

Yes, this is the existing behavior and we are just documenting it. I 
agree that it might have been nicer to do something else, but the 
behavior w.r.t., exception is unchanged since JDK 8.

> line 209 ?It must be a subclass of Application or a RuntimeException will be thrown.?
>
> I think this statement should be extended to cover if the class and its constructor are public and exported.
>   

Yes, this seems like another good place to document the restriction. 
I'll post a .01 version of the webrev with this update.

-- Kevin


> Mandy

From kevin.rushforth at oracle.com  Sat Mar  4 01:11:01 2017
From: kevin.rushforth at oracle.com (Kevin Rushforth)
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2017 17:11:01 -0800
Subject: [9] Review request: 8170701: Update FXML documentation for
 setAccessible
In-Reply-To: 
References: <58B9EE3A.5050408@oracle.com>
 
Message-ID: <58BA1425.2090903@oracle.com>



Mandy Chung wrote:
>> On Mar 3, 2017, at 10:29 PM, Kevin Rushforth  wrote:
>>
>> Please review the following to update the FXML docs to document the requirement for a module that annotates non-public members with @FXML to "open" the containing package to the javafx.fxml module.
>>
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8170701
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8170701/webrev.00/
>>     
>
> The doc change looks fine to me.
>
> Minor suggestion.  You may refer "module-info class? to {@link ModuleDescriptor} which can be synthesized (although it may not be common).
>   

I'll make this change.

> You may consider referencing {@link Module#isOpened} where you may say ?the containing package of the object is {@link Module#isOpened opened} to {@code javafx.fxml} module.
>   

Good idea I will do that.

I'll post an updated webrev.

-- Kevin

> Mandy

From kevin.rushforth at oracle.com  Sat Mar  4 17:14:57 2017
From: kevin.rushforth at oracle.com (Kevin Rushforth)
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2017 09:14:57 -0800
Subject: [9] Review request: 8170701: Update FXML documentation for
 setAccessible
In-Reply-To: <58BA1425.2090903@oracle.com>
References: <58B9EE3A.5050408@oracle.com>
 
 <58BA1425.2090903@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <58BAF611.7010402@oracle.com>

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8170701/webrev.01/


Kevin Rushforth wrote:
>
>
> Mandy Chung wrote:
>>> On Mar 3, 2017, at 10:29 PM, Kevin Rushforth 
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Please review the following to update the FXML docs to document the 
>>> requirement for a module that annotates non-public members with 
>>> @FXML to "open" the containing package to the javafx.fxml module.
>>>
>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8170701
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8170701/webrev.00/
>>>     
>>
>> The doc change looks fine to me.
>>
>> Minor suggestion.  You may refer "module-info class? to {@link 
>> ModuleDescriptor} which can be synthesized (although it may not be 
>> common).
>>   
>
> I'll make this change.
>
>> You may consider referencing {@link Module#isOpened} where you may 
>> say ?the containing package of the object is {@link Module#isOpened 
>> opened} to {@code javafx.fxml} module.
>>   
>
> Good idea I will do that.
>
> I'll post an updated webrev.
>
> -- Kevin
>
>> Mandy

From kevin.rushforth at oracle.com  Sat Mar  4 17:15:25 2017
From: kevin.rushforth at oracle.com (Kevin Rushforth)
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2017 09:15:25 -0800
Subject: [9] Review request: 8170702: Document that javafx.graphics needs
 explicit access to application main class
In-Reply-To: <58BA12B5.3040801@oracle.com>
References: <58B9EFB6.7080701@oracle.com> <58B9EFEF.5060906@oracle.com>
 <7DD1849D-C5DA-4007-BBBD-32DADB931FB0@oracle.com>
 <58BA12B5.3040801@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <58BAF62D.9060702@oracle.com>

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8170702/webrev.01/


Kevin Rushforth wrote:
>
>
> Mandy Chung wrote:
>>> On Mar 3, 2017, at 10:36 PM, Kevin Rushforth 
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> [fixed subject line]
>>>
>>> Please review the following to document that javafx.graphics needs 
>>> explicit access to the Application class.
>>>
>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8170702
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8170702/webrev.00/
>>>     
>>
>>   69  * containing package must be {@link 
>> Module#isExported(String,Module) exported}
>>
>> @linkplain instead?
>>   
>
> I was following the pattern in Module.java, etc., which uses a regular 
> @link in similar cases.
>
>>  239         StackTraceElement[] cause = 
>> Thread.currentThread().getStackTrace();
>>
>> Good candidate to use StackWalker API.
>>   
>
> This is pre-existing code (since JDK 7), and I don't want to change 
> the implementation this late while fixing a doc bug. I will file a 
> follow-on bug to consider improving this for JDK 10.
>
>> Is @throws RuntimeException an existing behavior?  I?d think CNFE and 
>> InaccessibleAE might be more appropriate.
>>   
>
> Yes, this is the existing behavior and we are just documenting it. I 
> agree that it might have been nicer to do something else, but the 
> behavior w.r.t., exception is unchanged since JDK 8.
>
>> line 209 ?It must be a subclass of Application or a RuntimeException 
>> will be thrown.?
>>
>> I think this statement should be extended to cover if the class and 
>> its constructor are public and exported.
>>   
>
> Yes, this seems like another good place to document the restriction. 
> I'll post a .01 version of the webrev with this update.
>
> -- Kevin
>
>
>> Mandy

From mandy.chung at oracle.com  Sat Mar  4 22:27:42 2017
From: mandy.chung at oracle.com (Mandy Chung)
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2017 22:27:42 +0000
Subject: [9] Review request: 8170702: Document that javafx.graphics needs
 explicit access to application main class
In-Reply-To: <58BA12B5.3040801@oracle.com>
References: <58B9EFB6.7080701@oracle.com> <58B9EFEF.5060906@oracle.com>
 <7DD1849D-C5DA-4007-BBBD-32DADB931FB0@oracle.com>
 <58BA12B5.3040801@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <9D33FCE2-D4B6-4D81-9F5B-200342CF3E78@oracle.com>


> On Mar 4, 2017, at 1:04 AM, Kevin Rushforth  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Mandy Chung wrote:
>> 
>>> On Mar 3, 2017, at 10:36 PM, Kevin Rushforth   wrote:
>>> 
>>> [fixed subject line]
>>> 
>>> Please review the following to document that javafx.graphics needs explicit access to the Application class.
>>> 
>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8170702 
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8170702/webrev.00/ 
>>>     
>> 
>>   69  * containing package must be {@link Module#isExported(String,Module) exported}
>> 
>> @linkplain instead?
>>   
> 
> I was following the pattern in Module.java, etc., which uses a regular @link in similar cases.
> 

Module.java should probably use @linkplain if that?s the case.  
>>  239         StackTraceElement[] cause = Thread.currentThread().getStackTrace();
>> 
>> Good candidate to use StackWalker API.
>>   
> 
> This is pre-existing code (since JDK 7), and I don't want to change the implementation this late while fixing a doc bug. I will file a follow-on bug to consider improving this for JDK 10.
> 

It's fine for JDK 10.
>> Is @throws RuntimeException an existing behavior?  I?d think CNFE and 
> 
> Yes, this seems like another good place to document the restriction. I'll post a .01 version of the webrev with this update.

Sounds good.

Mandy


From mandy.chung at oracle.com  Sat Mar  4 22:45:45 2017
From: mandy.chung at oracle.com (Mandy Chung)
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2017 22:45:45 +0000
Subject: [9] Review request: 8170702: Document that javafx.graphics needs
 explicit access to application main class
In-Reply-To: <58BAF62D.9060702@oracle.com>
References: <58B9EFB6.7080701@oracle.com> <58B9EFEF.5060906@oracle.com>
 <7DD1849D-C5DA-4007-BBBD-32DADB931FB0@oracle.com>
 <58BA12B5.3040801@oracle.com> <58BAF62D.9060702@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <27B5578F-C736-4698-B336-E6ACBF7BA13A@oracle.com>


> On Mar 4, 2017, at 5:15 PM, Kevin Rushforth  wrote:
> 
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8170702/webrev.01/

Nit: @linkplain will show the normal font as text in javadoc rather than like the font for {@code?} 

 209      * be a public subclass of Application, in a package that is
 210      * {@link Module#isExported(String,Module) exported} to at least the
 211      * {@code javafx.graphics} module, or a RuntimeException will be thrown.

Should it mention the public constructor?  No need to have a new webrev if you update this before you push.

Mandy


From mandy.chung at oracle.com  Sat Mar  4 22:50:06 2017
From: mandy.chung at oracle.com (Mandy Chung)
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2017 22:50:06 +0000
Subject: [9] Review request: 8170701: Update FXML documentation for
 setAccessible
In-Reply-To: <58BAF611.7010402@oracle.com>
References: <58B9EE3A.5050408@oracle.com>
 
 <58BA1425.2090903@oracle.com> <58BAF611.7010402@oracle.com>
Message-ID: 


> On Mar 4, 2017, at 5:14 PM, Kevin Rushforth  wrote:
> 
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8170701/webrev.01/
> 

  40  * object {@link Module#isOpen opens} the containing package to the

Nit: s/@link/@linkplain

  41  * {@code javafx.fxml} module, either in its {@link ModuleDescriptor}
  42  * (module-info.class) or by calling {@link Module#addOpens}.

Do you intend to take out ?(module-info.class)??  

  43  * An object is also reflectively accessible if it is declared as public,

Does ?it? mean its constructor?

  44  * is in a public class, and the module containing that class
  45  * {@link Module#isExported(String,Module) exports}

Nit: s/@link/@linkplain

  46  * the containing package to the {@code javafx.fxml} module.

This is word-smithing and formatting nit.  No need to send a new webrev.

Mandy

From kevin.rushforth at oracle.com  Mon Mar  6 15:06:27 2017
From: kevin.rushforth at oracle.com (Kevin Rushforth)
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2017 07:06:27 -0800
Subject: [9] Review request: 8170702: Document that javafx.graphics needs
 explicit access to application main class
In-Reply-To: <9D33FCE2-D4B6-4D81-9F5B-200342CF3E78@oracle.com>
References: <58B9EFB6.7080701@oracle.com> <58B9EFEF.5060906@oracle.com>
 <7DD1849D-C5DA-4007-BBBD-32DADB931FB0@oracle.com>
 <58BA12B5.3040801@oracle.com>
 <9D33FCE2-D4B6-4D81-9F5B-200342CF3E78@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <58BD7AF3.8000304@oracle.com>



Mandy Chung wrote:
>
>> On Mar 4, 2017, at 1:04 AM, Kevin Rushforth 
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Mandy Chung wrote:
>>>> On Mar 3, 2017, at 10:36 PM, Kevin Rushforth  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [fixed subject line]
>>>>
>>>> Please review the following to document that javafx.graphics needs explicit access to the Application class.
>>>>
>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8170702
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8170702/webrev.00/
>>>>     
>>>
>>>   69  * containing package must be {@link Module#isExported(String,Module) exported}
>>>
>>> @linkplain instead?
>>>   
>>
>> I was following the pattern in Module.java, etc., which uses a 
>> regular @link in similar cases.
>>
>
> Module.java should probably use @linkplain if that?s the case. 

At least Module.java and Layer.java use @link rather than @linkplain. I 
didn't do an exhaustive search. If you plan to file a bug to fix the JDK 
docs, then I will change it here to match (and in FXML.java for the 
other bug).

-- Kevin


>>>  239         StackTraceElement[] cause = Thread.currentThread().getStackTrace();
>>>
>>> Good candidate to use StackWalker API.
>>>   
>>
>> This is pre-existing code (since JDK 7), and I don't want to change 
>> the implementation this late while fixing a doc bug. I will file a 
>> follow-on bug to consider improving this for JDK 10.
>>
>
> It's fine for JDK 10.
>>> Is @throws RuntimeException an existing behavior?  I?d think CNFE and 
>>
>> Yes, this seems like another good place to document the restriction. 
>> I'll post a .01 version of the webrev with this update.
>
> Sounds good.
>
> Mandy
>

From kevin.rushforth at oracle.com  Mon Mar  6 15:11:04 2017
From: kevin.rushforth at oracle.com (Kevin Rushforth)
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2017 07:11:04 -0800
Subject: [9] Review request: 8170701: Update FXML documentation for
 setAccessible
In-Reply-To: 
References: <58B9EE3A.5050408@oracle.com>
 
 <58BA1425.2090903@oracle.com> <58BAF611.7010402@oracle.com>
 
Message-ID: <58BD7C08.7060804@oracle.com>



Mandy Chung wrote:
>> On Mar 4, 2017, at 5:14 PM, Kevin Rushforth  wrote:
>>
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8170701/webrev.01/
>>
>>     
>
>   40  * object {@link Module#isOpen opens} the containing package to the
>
> Nit: s/@link/@linkplain
>
>   41  * {@code javafx.fxml} module, either in its {@link ModuleDescriptor}
>   42  * (module-info.class) or by calling {@link Module#addOpens}.
>
> Do you intend to take out ?(module-info.class)??  
>   

I was thinking to leave it in, since module-info.class is the most 
common way to specify a ModuleDescription. Maybe better would be:

    @{link ModuleDescriptor} (e.g., in its module-info.class)

>   43  * An object is also reflectively accessible if it is declared as public,
>
> Does ?it? mean its constructor?
>   

No. It means the declaration itself, for example:

    @FXML
    public String myString;


as opposed to:

    @FXML
    private String myString;

-- Kevin


>   44  * is in a public class, and the module containing that class
>   45  * {@link Module#isExported(String,Module) exports}
>
> Nit: s/@link/@linkplain
>
>   46  * the containing package to the {@code javafx.fxml} module.
>
> This is word-smithing and formatting nit.  No need to send a new webrev.
>
> Mandy

From kevin.rushforth at oracle.com  Mon Mar  6 15:19:34 2017
From: kevin.rushforth at oracle.com (Kevin Rushforth)
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2017 07:19:34 -0800
Subject: [9] Review request: 8170702: Document that javafx.graphics needs
 explicit access to application main class
In-Reply-To: <27B5578F-C736-4698-B336-E6ACBF7BA13A@oracle.com>
References: <58B9EFB6.7080701@oracle.com> <58B9EFEF.5060906@oracle.com>
 <7DD1849D-C5DA-4007-BBBD-32DADB931FB0@oracle.com>
 <58BA12B5.3040801@oracle.com> <58BAF62D.9060702@oracle.com>
 <27B5578F-C736-4698-B336-E6ACBF7BA13A@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <58BD7E06.4050000@oracle.com>



Mandy Chung wrote:
>> On Mar 4, 2017, at 5:15 PM, Kevin Rushforth  wrote:
>>
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8170702/webrev.01/
>>     
>
> Nit: @linkplain will show the normal font as text in javadoc rather than like the font for {@code?} 
>   

Right...see my other reply. I'm happy to make this change if you plan to 
do the same for the rest of the JDK.


>  209      * be a public subclass of Application, in a package that is
>  210      * {@link Module#isExported(String,Module) exported} to at least the
>  211      * {@code javafx.graphics} module, or a RuntimeException will be thrown.
>
> Should it mention the public constructor?  No need to have a new webrev if you update this before you push.
>   

A good point, yes, I will add this.

-- Kevin


> Mandy
>
>   

From vadim.pakhnushev at oracle.com  Mon Mar  6 21:30:33 2017
From: vadim.pakhnushev at oracle.com (Vadim Pakhnushev)
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 00:30:33 +0300
Subject: [9] Review request for 8176236: Some field descriptions are truncated
 after the JDK-8163501
Message-ID: <1ba01ac2-3784-74cf-a96c-c8f906eee462@oracle.com>

Kevin,
Could you please review this fix?

https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8176236
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vadim/8176236/webrev.00/

Thanks,
Vadim

From kevin.rushforth at oracle.com  Tue Mar  7 00:11:07 2017
From: kevin.rushforth at oracle.com (Kevin Rushforth)
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2017 16:11:07 -0800
Subject: Deadline for FX fixes for JDK 9 + FX 10-dev repo opening soon
Message-ID: <58BDFA9B.1090203@oracle.com>

All,

We are in the final week of bug fixing for JDK 9 prior to RDP2 [1]. All 
bug fixes targeted to JDK 9 must be done this week prior to the last 
integration for the RDP2 build.

If you have a safe (low-risk) fix for a P1-P3 bug, or a fix for any 
priority (P1-P5) test bug (label == 'testbug' or 'noreg-self') or doc 
bug (labels == 'noreg-doc') you can push it to FX 9-dev once the review 
is done with no additional approval needed, as long as it is pushed 
prior to the deadline.

The deadline for getting FX changes into 9-dev for the RDP2 build is 
*1:00 am Pacific on Friday, March 10*. Practically speaking this means 
you need to send the review out by Wednesday, March 8 afternoon Pacific 
unless it is a trivial fix and you can arrange for someone to review it.

No changesets should be pushed to FX 9-dev after the March 10, 1:00 am 
Pacific deadline without explicit approval, which will only be given for 
"must-fix" bugs. Bugs that are not "must-fix" should be deferred to JDK 
10 if they will not make the deadline.

I plan to open up the OpenJFX 10-dev repo later this week. Initially 
this will be for bug fixes that were deferred from JDK 9 and are not 
release stoppers. Stay tuned for more details.

-- Kevin

[1] http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk9/


From mandy.chung at oracle.com  Tue Mar  7 01:48:54 2017
From: mandy.chung at oracle.com (Mandy Chung)
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2017 17:48:54 -0800
Subject: [9] Review request: 8170701: Update FXML documentation for
 setAccessible
In-Reply-To: <58BD7C08.7060804@oracle.com>
References: <58B9EE3A.5050408@oracle.com>
 
 <58BA1425.2090903@oracle.com> <58BAF611.7010402@oracle.com>
 
 <58BD7C08.7060804@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <1C1E45A5-2348-4AC0-B82B-008615CA4242@oracle.com>


> On Mar 6, 2017, at 7:11 AM, Kevin Rushforth  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Mandy Chung wrote:
>> 
>>> On Mar 4, 2017, at 5:14 PM, Kevin Rushforth   wrote:
>>> 
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8170701/webrev.01/ 
>>> 
>>>     
>> 
>>   40  * object {@link Module#isOpen opens} the containing package to the
>> 
>> Nit: s/@link/@linkplain
>> 
>>   41  * {@code javafx.fxml} module, either in its {@link ModuleDescriptor}
>>   42  * (module-info.class) or by calling {@link Module#addOpens}.
>> 
>> Do you intend to take out ?(module-info.class)??  
>>   
> 
> I was thinking to leave it in, since module-info.class is the most common way to specify a ModuleDescription. Maybe better would be:
> 
>     @{link ModuleDescriptor} (e.g., in its module-info.class)
> 

That?s okay.
>>   43  * An object is also reflectively accessible if it is declared as public,
>> 
>> Does ?it? mean its constructor?
>>   
> 
> No. It means the declaration itself, for example:
> 
>     @FXML
>     public String myString;
> 
> 
> as opposed to:
> 
>     @FXML
>     private String myString;

I see.   I?m not close to this spec.  I am not sure if it worths further clarification such as ?it is a public member?.  I?ll leave it up for you to decide.

Mandy

From kevin.rushforth at oracle.com  Tue Mar  7 15:12:25 2017
From: kevin.rushforth at oracle.com (Kevin Rushforth)
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2017 07:12:25 -0800
Subject: [9] Review request: 8170701: Update FXML documentation for
 setAccessible
In-Reply-To: <1C1E45A5-2348-4AC0-B82B-008615CA4242@oracle.com>
References: <58B9EE3A.5050408@oracle.com>
 
 <58BA1425.2090903@oracle.com> <58BAF611.7010402@oracle.com>
 
 <58BD7C08.7060804@oracle.com>
 <1C1E45A5-2348-4AC0-B82B-008615CA4242@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <58BECDD9.9050104@oracle.com>

 > I see.   I?m not close to this spec.  I am not sure if it worths 
further clarification such as ?it is a public member?.  I?ll leave it up 
for you to decide.

I like this suggestion, so I will change it before I push.

Thanks.

-- Kevin


Mandy Chung wrote:
>
>> On Mar 6, 2017, at 7:11 AM, Kevin Rushforth 
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Mandy Chung wrote:
>>>> On Mar 4, 2017, at 5:14 PM, Kevin Rushforth  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8170701/webrev.01/
>>>>
>>>>     
>>>
>>>   40  * object {@link Module#isOpen opens} the containing package to the
>>>
>>> Nit: s/@link/@linkplain
>>>
>>>   41  * {@code javafx.fxml} module, either in its {@link ModuleDescriptor}
>>>   42  * (module-info.class) or by calling {@link Module#addOpens}.
>>>
>>> Do you intend to take out ?(module-info.class)??  
>>>   
>>
>> I was thinking to leave it in, since module-info.class is the most 
>> common way to specify a ModuleDescription. Maybe better would be:
>>
>>     @{link ModuleDescriptor} (e.g., in its module-info.class)
>>
>
> That?s okay.
>>>   43  * An object is also reflectively accessible if it is declared as public,
>>>
>>> Does ?it? mean its constructor?
>>>   
>>
>> No. It means the declaration itself, for example:
>>
>>     @FXML
>>     public String myString;
>>
>>
>> as opposed to:
>>
>>     @FXML
>>     private String myString;
>
> I see.   I?m not close to this spec.  I am not sure if it worths 
> further clarification such as ?it is a public member?.  I?ll leave it 
> up for you to decide.
>
> Mandy

From kevin.rushforth at oracle.com  Tue Mar  7 15:49:45 2017
From: kevin.rushforth at oracle.com (Kevin Rushforth)
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2017 07:49:45 -0800
Subject: [9] Review request: 8174972: WebKit version number is missing in
 third-party license file
Message-ID: <58BED699.3010509@oracle.com>

Please review the following simple fix to add the WebKit version number 
(602.1) to the third-party license file:

https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8174972

The one line diff is in a JBS comment:

-- Kevin


From David.Hill at Oracle.com  Tue Mar  7 17:46:29 2017
From: David.Hill at Oracle.com (David Hill)
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2017 12:46:29 -0500
Subject: heads up... gradle 3.4 does not play nice
Message-ID: <58BEF1F5.5040409@Oracle.com>


I just tried grade-3.4 and ran into an issue I am not seeing with gradle 3.2.1 and older.

So for now anyway..... don't upgrade :-)

The issue is with javac compilation, I would guess that gradle is catching up to the workaround I put in and they don't play well.

:base:compileJava
javac: cannot specify both --source-path and --module-source-path


-- 
David Hill
Java Embedded Development

"A man's feet should be planted in his country, but his eyes should survey the world."
-- George Santayana (1863 - 1952)


From kevin.rushforth at oracle.com  Tue Mar  7 19:19:53 2017
From: kevin.rushforth at oracle.com (Kevin Rushforth)
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2017 11:19:53 -0800
Subject: [10] Review request: 8176316: Change JavaFX release version to 10
Message-ID: <58BF07D9.60205@oracle.com>

Hi Dave,

Please review the following to change the FX release version to 10 in 
the soon-to-be-opened FX 10 forest:

https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8176316
http://jfx.us.oracle.com/shared-webrev/kcr/8176316/webrev-jfx.00/

Thanks.

-- Kevin


From kevin.rushforth at oracle.com  Tue Mar  7 19:41:48 2017
From: kevin.rushforth at oracle.com (Kevin Rushforth)
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2017 11:41:48 -0800
Subject: [10] Review request: 8176316: Change JavaFX release version to 10
In-Reply-To: <58BF07D9.60205@oracle.com>
References: <58BF07D9.60205@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <58BF0CFC.9000009@oracle.com>

[resend to fix URL for webrev]

Hi Dave,

Please review the following to change the FX release version to 10 in 
the soon-to-be-opened FX 10 forest:

https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8176316
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8176316/webrev.00/

Thanks.

-- Kevin


From kevin.rushforth at oracle.com  Wed Mar  8 13:25:57 2017
From: kevin.rushforth at oracle.com (Kevin Rushforth)
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2017 05:25:57 -0800
Subject: [9] Review request: 8174971: Missing modified source location in
 third-party WebKit, GStreamer, and Glib licenses
Message-ID: <58C00665.6040102@oracle.com>

Alexander & Guru,

Please review the following addition to the 3rd-party license files for 
media & web:

https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8174971
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8174971/webrev.00/

-- Kevin



From kevin.rushforth at oracle.com  Wed Mar  8 17:22:04 2017
From: kevin.rushforth at oracle.com (Kevin Rushforth)
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2017 09:22:04 -0800
Subject: [9] Review request: 8175051: PerspectiveCamera docs are misleading
 for movable Camera
Message-ID: <58C03DBC.3040207@oracle.com>

Hi Chien,

Please review the following doc fix:

https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8175051
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8175051/webrev.00/

Thanks.

-- Kevin


From kevin.rushforth at oracle.com  Wed Mar  8 17:22:15 2017
From: kevin.rushforth at oracle.com (Kevin Rushforth)
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2017 09:22:15 -0800
Subject: [9] Review request: 8176158: Fix typos in FX API docs
Message-ID: <58C03DC7.9000504@oracle.com>

Hi Jonathan,

Please review the following doc change:

https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8176158
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8176158/webrev.00/

Thanks.

-- Kevin


From kevin.rushforth at oracle.com  Wed Mar  8 21:04:17 2017
From: kevin.rushforth at oracle.com (Kevin Rushforth)
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2017 13:04:17 -0800
Subject: [9] Review request: 8088865: Need better documentation for the FX
 initialization process
Message-ID: <58C071D1.5030604@oracle.com>

Hi Jonathan,

Please review the following doc fix:

https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8088865
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8088865/webrev.00/

Thanks.

-- Kevin


From kevin.rushforth at oracle.com  Thu Mar  9 01:22:07 2017
From: kevin.rushforth at oracle.com (Kevin Rushforth)
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2017 17:22:07 -0800
Subject: [9] Review request: 8176404: Remove public test-only convenience
 method from CssParser
Message-ID: <58C0AE3F.8030506@oracle.com>

Hi Jonathan,

Please review the following to remove a method that was mistakenly made 
public when the CssParser, etc., classes were added as public API as 
part of JEP 253:

https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8176404
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8176404/webrev.00/

Details are in JBS.

-- Kevin


From chien.yang at oracle.com  Thu Mar  9 23:01:16 2017
From: chien.yang at oracle.com (Chien Yang)
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2017 15:01:16 -0800
Subject: [9] Code Review Request 8163385: Fix doclint errors and warnings in
 javafx.controls module
Message-ID: <29acb346-ad47-9f0b-f82e-0ee01813f9df@oracle.com>

Hi Jonathan and Kevin,

Please review the proposed fix.

JIRA: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8163385

Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ckyang/JDK-8163385/webrev.00/

Thanks,

- Chien


From kevin.rushforth at oracle.com  Fri Mar 10 01:18:08 2017
From: kevin.rushforth at oracle.com (Kevin Rushforth)
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2017 17:18:08 -0800
Subject: [9] Review request: 8090255: Fix doclint errors and warnings in JavaFX
 API docs
Message-ID: <58C1FED0.3080503@oracle.com>

Chien & Jonathan,

Please review the javadoc changes for the rest of the modules -- 
javafx.fxml, javafx.media, javafx.web -- to make them doclint clean.

https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8090255
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8090255/webrev.00/

Component owners for these three modules are of course welcome to review 
them and provide feedback.

NOTE: this will miss the 1am PT deadline, but we may get the last two 
doclint changes (including Chien's javafx.controls fix) in as late 
changes for this week's build. Otherwise we will get them in next week 
during RDP2 (by approval from the JDK 9 R-team...stay tuned for policy 
on this).

-- Kevin


From kevin.rushforth at oracle.com  Fri Mar 10 17:16:30 2017
From: kevin.rushforth at oracle.com (Kevin Rushforth)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 09:16:30 -0800
Subject: JavaFX is now at RDP2 for JDK 9
Message-ID: <58C2DF6E.4010709@oracle.com>

I just pushed two late-breaking javadoc fixes (as was mentioned 
yesterday), which are planned as part of today's integration into the 
RDP2 build after our testing is done.

As a reminder we are now under RDP2 rules where all changes need 
additional approval. I will post an update with the exact rules as soon 
as I can, but in the mean time, ask before pushing anything to FX 9-dev.

I will open up 10-dev either later today or on Monday.

-- Kevin


From philip.race at oracle.com  Fri Mar 10 22:26:57 2017
From: philip.race at oracle.com (Phil Race)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 14:26:57 -0800
Subject: RFR: 8088395: Print dialogs are not blocking/modal w.r.t specified
 owner windows
Message-ID: <2c022a82-abb3-ac14-3393-6f618f29f419@oracle.com>

This has an FX bug + webrev :
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8088395
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~prr/8088395/index.html 


and also a JDK-side fix and webrev :-
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8176530
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~prr/8176350/

The problem is FX modal dialogs are ignoring the Window parameter.
We can fix the problem with disabling the modal parent on the FX side
and that is why most files in FX are updated.

But it does not fix the "on top" issue which requires the JDK fixes and
to pass in the DialogOnTop private attribute.
The JDK code is there solely for FX and won't have any visibility
unless FX passes in the private attribute.

On Linux it uses the standard AWT "always on top" modality
On windows it uses the HWND for the FX window and windows native modality
On Mac you won't see anything since Mac does this automatically

-phil.

From kevin.rushforth at oracle.com  Mon Mar 13 18:53:39 2017
From: kevin.rushforth at oracle.com (Kevin Rushforth)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 11:53:39 -0700
Subject: JavaFX is almost at RDP2 for JDK 9...
In-Reply-To: <58C2DF6E.4010709@oracle.com>
References: <58C2DF6E.4010709@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <58C6EAB3.8060701@oracle.com>

It turns out I misunderstood the deadline for RDP2 -- we actually have 
another few days to get bug fixes in without additional approval. The 
deadline to get bug fixes in prior to RDP2 is this Thursday, Mar 16 @ 
11:59 pm PDT.

So if there are any P1-P3 bugs that just missed RDP2, go ahead and push 
them to FX 9-dev once the code review is complete, as long as it is 
before the deadline.

After the RDP2 deadline, approval will be needed for any further fixes. 
An exception will be made for certain types of fixes (e.g., doc fixes, 
comment changes, test fixes), which I will clarify at that time.

-- Kevin


Kevin Rushforth wrote:
> I just pushed two late-breaking javadoc fixes (as was mentioned 
> yesterday), which are planned as part of today's integration into the 
> RDP2 build after our testing is done.
>
> As a reminder we are now under RDP2 rules where all changes need 
> additional approval. I will post an update with the exact rules as 
> soon as I can, but in the mean time, ask before pushing anything to FX 
> 9-dev.
>
> I will open up 10-dev either later today or on Monday.
>
> -- Kevin
>

From kevin.rushforth at oracle.com  Mon Mar 13 19:55:23 2017
From: kevin.rushforth at oracle.com (Kevin Rushforth)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 12:55:23 -0700
Subject: OpenJFX 10-dev is open for bug fixing
Message-ID: <58C6F92B.9040702@oracle.com>

I am pleased to announce that the OpenJFX 10-dev repo is open for bug 
fixes at:

http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/10-dev/rt

There are three important rules to be aware of at this time:

1. We will be forward-syncing changes from FX 9-dev --> 10-dev on a 
regular basis. This mean that you should *NOT* push any changeset to 
10-dev if it will (or is planned to) also be pushed to 9-dev. Fix such 
bugs only in FX 9-dev and let the forward syncing take care of getting 
that fix into 10. This goes for bugs that are on 9-critical-watch for 
which additional approval is needed.

2. At this time we are only taking bug fixes and small enhancements to 
10-dev. No API changes yet.

3. Because we are still forward-syncing changes from 9-dev to 10-dev 
(see #1), please avoid any refactoring or other large-scale change that 
would create unnecessary merge conflicts.

Let me know if you have questions about this.

Thank you.

-- Kevin


From kevin.rushforth at oracle.com  Mon Mar 13 20:07:40 2017
From: kevin.rushforth at oracle.com (Kevin Rushforth)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 13:07:40 -0700
Subject: [9] Review request: 8176538: Fix errors in JavaFX API docs when using
 'javadoc -html5'
Message-ID: <58C6FC0C.1070109@oracle.com>

Please review the following javadoc-only change to make the FX API docs 
doclint clean with -html5 :

https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8176538
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8176538/webrev.00/

I verified that with these changes we are doclint clean both with and 
without the -html5 option.

Thanks.

-- Kevin


From chris.bensen at oracle.com  Tue Mar 14 15:45:30 2017
From: chris.bensen at oracle.com (Chris Bensen)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 08:45:30 -0700
Subject: [9] Review request: 8176582 javapackager.exe doesn't work from
 c:\program files
Message-ID: 

Kevin, Victor,

Please review this change to add quotes around path strings.

JIRA: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8176582
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~cbensen/JDK-8176582/webrev.01/

Chris

From sergey.bylokhov at oracle.com  Tue Mar 14 16:02:09 2017
From: sergey.bylokhov at oracle.com (Sergey Bylokhov)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 19:02:09 +0300
Subject: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] RFR: 8088395: Print dialogs are not
 blocking/modal w.r.t specified owner windows
In-Reply-To: <2c022a82-abb3-ac14-3393-6f618f29f419@oracle.com>
References: <2c022a82-abb3-ac14-3393-6f618f29f419@oracle.com>
Message-ID: 

Hi, Phil.
I have only two questions:
 - Does it mean that we do not support "ontop" property via public API in idk?
 - Probably the name should contain ?owner? instead of ?parent??, But since this is not a public API I guess it is not an issue.

> 
> 
> This has an FX bug + webrev :
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8088395 
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~prr/8088395/index.html 
> 
> and also a JDK-side fix and webrev :-
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8176530 
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~prr/8176350/ 
> 
> The problem is FX modal dialogs are ignoring the Window parameter.
> We can fix the problem with disabling the modal parent on the FX side
> and that is why most files in FX are updated.
> 
> But it does not fix the "on top" issue which requires the JDK fixes and
> to pass in the DialogOnTop private attribute.
> The JDK code is there solely for FX and won't have any visibility
> unless FX passes in the private attribute.
> 
> On Linux it uses the standard AWT "always on top" modality
> On windows it uses the HWND for the FX window and windows native modality
> On Mac you won't see anything since Mac does this automatically
> 
> -phil.


From philip.race at oracle.com  Tue Mar 14 17:32:55 2017
From: philip.race at oracle.com (Phil Race)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 10:32:55 -0700
Subject: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] RFR: 8088395: Print dialogs are not
 blocking/modal w.r.t specified owner windows
In-Reply-To: 
References: <2c022a82-abb3-ac14-3393-6f618f29f419@oracle.com>
 
Message-ID: <10d9895a-4fbe-52a0-124d-9bffeded915e@oracle.com>

I have updated webrevs described below, and also I answer your questions

FX is updated only to fix trailing white space and one modifier ordering
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~prr/8088395.1/

The JDK side has a few modifications :
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~prr/8176350.1/
(a) awt_PrintDialog.cpp and awt_PrintJob.cpp have an added safety check.
We now call ::IsWindowHandle(id) as we do elsewhere to make sure its valid.

(b) The Page Setup Dialog on Linux was not seeing the AlwaysOnTop property.
In part this was because it wasn't being checked in 
ServiceDialog.initPageDialog() - fixed
In other part it is because the attributes weren't propagated. The 
reason for this is
a bit lengthy to explain but the main thing to say is that we have an 
instance variable
attributes as well as a local variable in some places.
I didn't want to touch any code that even theoretically might affect 2D 
printing so
instead I cached the attribute as we do the owner id so it is passed on 
properly
Thanks to Kevin for spotting this problem


On 03/14/2017 09:02 AM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
> Hi, Phil.
> I have only two questions:
>  - Does it mean that we do not support "ontop" property via public API 
> in idk?

There is no API for the "alwaysOnTop" AWT property for the print dialogs.
I actually don't think it can be implemented for the windows native 
print controls.
There is an internal way to make an AWT window owner for the Swing print 
dialog
but nothing public and it doesn't help here as the owner is not an AWT 
window.


>  - Probably the name should contain ?owner? instead of ?parent??, But 
> since this is not a public API I guess it is not an issue.

I suppose that is more correct. Something to address if it ever makes 
its way into API or docs.

-phil.

>
>>
>>
>> This has an FX bug + webrev :
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8088395
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~prr/8088395/index.html 
>> 
>>
>> and also a JDK-side fix and webrev :-
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8176530
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~prr/8176350/
>>
>> The problem is FX modal dialogs are ignoring the Window parameter.
>> We can fix the problem with disabling the modal parent on the FX side
>> and that is why most files in FX are updated.
>>
>> But it does not fix the "on top" issue which requires the JDK fixes and
>> to pass in the DialogOnTop private attribute.
>> The JDK code is there solely for FX and won't have any visibility
>> unless FX passes in the private attribute.
>>
>> On Linux it uses the standard AWT "always on top" modality
>> On windows it uses the HWND for the FX window and windows native modality
>> On Mac you won't see anything since Mac does this automatically
>>
>> -phil.
>


From kevin.rushforth at oracle.com  Tue Mar 14 18:01:36 2017
From: kevin.rushforth at oracle.com (Kevin Rushforth)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 11:01:36 -0700
Subject: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] RFR: 8088395: Print dialogs are not
 blocking/modal w.r.t specified owner windows
In-Reply-To: <10d9895a-4fbe-52a0-124d-9bffeded915e@oracle.com>
References: <2c022a82-abb3-ac14-3393-6f618f29f419@oracle.com>
 
 <10d9895a-4fbe-52a0-124d-9bffeded915e@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <58C83000.7060507@oracle.com>

Changes look good to me. All testing is fine, too.

+1 for both halves of the fix

-- Kevin


Phil Race wrote:
> I have updated webrevs described below, and also I answer your questions
>
> FX is updated only to fix trailing white space and one modifier ordering
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~prr/8088395.1/
>
> The JDK side has a few modifications :
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~prr/8176350.1/
> (a) awt_PrintDialog.cpp and awt_PrintJob.cpp have an added safety check.
> We now call ::IsWindowHandle(id) as we do elsewhere to make sure its 
> valid.
>
> (b) The Page Setup Dialog on Linux was not seeing the AlwaysOnTop 
> property.
> In part this was because it wasn't being checked in 
> ServiceDialog.initPageDialog() - fixed
> In other part it is because the attributes weren't propagated. The 
> reason for this is
> a bit lengthy to explain but the main thing to say is that we have an 
> instance variable
> attributes as well as a local variable in some places.
> I didn't want to touch any code that even theoretically might affect 
> 2D printing so
> instead I cached the attribute as we do the owner id so it is passed 
> on properly
> Thanks to Kevin for spotting this problem
>
>
> On 03/14/2017 09:02 AM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
>> Hi, Phil.
>> I have only two questions:
>>  - Does it mean that we do not support "ontop" property via public 
>> API in idk?
>
> There is no API for the "alwaysOnTop" AWT property for the print dialogs.
> I actually don't think it can be implemented for the windows native 
> print controls.
> There is an internal way to make an AWT window owner for the Swing 
> print dialog
> but nothing public and it doesn't help here as the owner is not an AWT 
> window.
>
>
>>  - Probably the name should contain ?owner? instead of ?parent??, But 
>> since this is not a public API I guess it is not an issue.
>
> I suppose that is more correct. Something to address if it ever makes 
> its way into API or docs.
>
> -phil.
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This has an FX bug + webrev :
>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8088395
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~prr/8088395/index.html 
>>> 
>>>
>>> and also a JDK-side fix and webrev :-
>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8176530
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~prr/8176350/
>>>
>>> The problem is FX modal dialogs are ignoring the Window parameter.
>>> We can fix the problem with disabling the modal parent on the FX side
>>> and that is why most files in FX are updated.
>>>
>>> But it does not fix the "on top" issue which requires the JDK fixes and
>>> to pass in the DialogOnTop private attribute.
>>> The JDK code is there solely for FX and won't have any visibility
>>> unless FX passes in the private attribute.
>>>
>>> On Linux it uses the standard AWT "always on top" modality
>>> On windows it uses the HWND for the FX window and windows native 
>>> modality
>>> On Mac you won't see anything since Mac does this automatically
>>>
>>> -phil.
>>
>

From kevin.rushforth at oracle.com  Tue Mar 14 18:26:28 2017
From: kevin.rushforth at oracle.com (Kevin Rushforth)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 11:26:28 -0700
Subject: [9] Review request: 8176770: Use consistent naming for LGPL in license
 files
Message-ID: <58C835D4.7070801@oracle.com>

Please review the following simple change to use a consistent name in 
the markdown files for the LGPL license (this does not change the text 
of the license itself, just the title).

https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8176770
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8176770/webrev.00/

Thanks.

-- Kevin


From sergey.bylokhov at oracle.com  Tue Mar 14 18:28:26 2017
From: sergey.bylokhov at oracle.com (Sergey Bylokhov)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 21:28:26 +0300
Subject: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] RFR: 8088395: Print dialogs are not
 blocking/modal w.r.t specified owner windows
In-Reply-To: <10d9895a-4fbe-52a0-124d-9bffeded915e@oracle.com>
References: <2c022a82-abb3-ac14-3393-6f618f29f419@oracle.com>
 
 <10d9895a-4fbe-52a0-124d-9bffeded915e@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <77CF29CD-E8D5-4307-8189-6E88A7BAB1DF@oracle.com>


> There is no API for the "alwaysOnTop" AWT property for the print dialogs.
> I actually don't think it can be implemented for the windows native print controls.
> There is an internal way to make an AWT window owner for the Swing print dialog
> but nothing public and it doesn't help here as the owner is not an AWT window.

Ok.

> 
> 
>>  - Probably the name should contain ?owner? instead of ?parent??, But since this is not a public API I guess it is not an issue.
> 
> I suppose that is more correct. Something to address if it ever makes its way into API or docs.
> 
> -phil.
> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> This has an FX bug + webrev :
>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8088395 
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~prr/8088395/index.html 
>>> 
>>> and also a JDK-side fix and webrev :-
>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8176530 
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~prr/8176350/ 
>>> 
>>> The problem is FX modal dialogs are ignoring the Window parameter.
>>> We can fix the problem with disabling the modal parent on the FX side
>>> and that is why most files in FX are updated.
>>> 
>>> But it does not fix the "on top" issue which requires the JDK fixes and
>>> to pass in the DialogOnTop private attribute.
>>> The JDK code is there solely for FX and won't have any visibility
>>> unless FX passes in the private attribute.
>>> 
>>> On Linux it uses the standard AWT "always on top" modality
>>> On windows it uses the HWND for the FX window and windows native modality
>>> On Mac you won't see anything since Mac does this automatically
>>> 
>>> -phil.
>> 
> 


From semyon.sadetsky at oracle.com  Wed Mar 15 03:17:51 2017
From: semyon.sadetsky at oracle.com (Semyon Sadetsky)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 20:17:51 -0700
Subject: [9] Review request for 8175822: Pulldown position regression and not
 painting correctly tooltips regression
Message-ID: <0ae8af80-bde3-a1af-ab17-490d1ebfe4d7@oracle.com>

Hello Kevin & David,

Please review the fix for jfx9:

bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8175822

webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ssadetsky/8175822/webrev.00/

--Semyon


From prasanta.sadhukhan at oracle.com  Wed Mar 15 05:36:05 2017
From: prasanta.sadhukhan at oracle.com (Prasanta Sadhukhan)
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 11:06:05 +0530
Subject: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] RFR: 8088395: Print dialogs are not
 blocking/modal w.r.t specified owner windows
In-Reply-To: <10d9895a-4fbe-52a0-124d-9bffeded915e@oracle.com>
References: <2c022a82-abb3-ac14-3393-6f618f29f419@oracle.com>
 
 <10d9895a-4fbe-52a0-124d-9bffeded915e@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <09b06da8-8127-caa3-4125-63297641187b@oracle.com>

Looks good to me.

Regards
Prasanta
On 3/14/2017 11:02 PM, Phil Race wrote:
> I have updated webrevs described below, and also I answer your questions
>
> FX is updated only to fix trailing white space and one modifier ordering
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~prr/8088395.1/
>
> The JDK side has a few modifications :
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~prr/8176350.1/
> (a) awt_PrintDialog.cpp and awt_PrintJob.cpp have an added safety check.
> We now call ::IsWindowHandle(id) as we do elsewhere to make sure its 
> valid.
>
> (b) The Page Setup Dialog on Linux was not seeing the AlwaysOnTop 
> property.
> In part this was because it wasn't being checked in 
> ServiceDialog.initPageDialog() - fixed
> In other part it is because the attributes weren't propagated. The 
> reason for this is
> a bit lengthy to explain but the main thing to say is that we have an 
> instance variable
> attributes as well as a local variable in some places.
> I didn't want to touch any code that even theoretically might affect 
> 2D printing so
> instead I cached the attribute as we do the owner id so it is passed 
> on properly
> Thanks to Kevin for spotting this problem
>
>
> On 03/14/2017 09:02 AM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
>> Hi, Phil.
>> I have only two questions:
>>  - Does it mean that we do not support "ontop" property via public 
>> API in idk?
>
> There is no API for the "alwaysOnTop" AWT property for the print dialogs.
> I actually don't think it can be implemented for the windows native 
> print controls.
> There is an internal way to make an AWT window owner for the Swing 
> print dialog
> but nothing public and it doesn't help here as the owner is not an AWT 
> window.
>
>
>>  - Probably the name should contain ?owner? instead of ?parent??, But 
>> since this is not a public API I guess it is not an issue.
>
> I suppose that is more correct. Something to address if it ever makes 
> its way into API or docs.
>
> -phil.
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This has an FX bug + webrev :
>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8088395
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~prr/8088395/index.html 
>>> 
>>>
>>> and also a JDK-side fix and webrev :-
>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8176530
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~prr/8176350/
>>>
>>> The problem is FX modal dialogs are ignoring the Window parameter.
>>> We can fix the problem with disabling the modal parent on the FX side
>>> and that is why most files in FX are updated.
>>>
>>> But it does not fix the "on top" issue which requires the JDK fixes and
>>> to pass in the DialogOnTop private attribute.
>>> The JDK code is there solely for FX and won't have any visibility
>>> unless FX passes in the private attribute.
>>>
>>> On Linux it uses the standard AWT "always on top" modality
>>> On windows it uses the HWND for the FX window and windows native 
>>> modality
>>> On Mac you won't see anything since Mac does this automatically
>>>
>>> -phil.
>>
>


From kevin.rushforth at oracle.com  Wed Mar 15 18:27:39 2017
From: kevin.rushforth at oracle.com (Kevin Rushforth)
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 11:27:39 -0700
Subject: [9] Review request: 8174123: Disable failing full-screen and maximize
 tests on Mac
Message-ID: <58C9879B.1070208@oracle.com>

Please review this simple fix to disable 3 failing unit tests on Mac 
platforms (there are already JBS bugs filed tracking the failures on Mac).

https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8174123
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8176818/webrev.00/

-- Kevin


From kevin.rushforth at oracle.com  Wed Mar 15 18:30:07 2017
From: kevin.rushforth at oracle.com (Kevin Rushforth)
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 11:30:07 -0700
Subject: [9] Review request: 8176818: Disable failing full-screen and maximize
 tests on Mac
In-Reply-To: <58C9879B.1070208@oracle.com>
References: <58C9879B.1070208@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <58C9882F.8060209@oracle.com>

[Resend with correct JBS bug ID]

Please review this simple fix to disable 3 failing unit tests on Mac 
platforms (there are already JBS bugs filed tracking the failures on Mac).

https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8176818
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8176818/webrev.00/

-- Kevin


From kevin.rushforth at oracle.com  Wed Mar 15 21:13:48 2017
From: kevin.rushforth at oracle.com (Kevin Rushforth)
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 14:13:48 -0700
Subject: [9] Review request: 8172069: Modena sample: no response after clicking
 "Restart" button
Message-ID: <58C9AE8C.8040605@oracle.com>

Chien,

Please review this fix for a typo in one of our demo programs.

https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8172069

The one line fix is in JBS.

-- Kevin


From philip.race at oracle.com  Fri Mar 17 20:42:01 2017
From: philip.race at oracle.com (Phil Race)
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 13:42:01 -0700
Subject: RFR: 8088395: Print dialogs are not blocking/modal w.r.t specified
 owner windows
Message-ID: 

This is the 8u backport of this FX+JDK fix

Not much changed so not much re-review is needed.

First the FX part.

https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8088395

webrev : http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~prr/8088395.8u/

The patch applied cleanly but the fix needed some small updates.

In JDK 9 we used

final TKStage stage = WindowHelper.getPeer(owner);

In JDK 8 that helper does not (need to) exist as we still have the impl 
methods
so it looks like

final TKStage stage = owner.impl_getPeer();


Also in J2DPrinterJob.java I was able to remove (old lines 105-110)
a condition which requested that asking for the native dialog be
skipped on Linux. The JDK bug which required that workaround has
now been backported.


On the JDK side no changes were needed, no backport review requested
but here are the changes which will be needed by anyone who wants to
test it:

https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8176530

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~prr/8176350.8u/

-phil.

From kevin.rushforth at oracle.com  Sat Mar 18 00:08:50 2017
From: kevin.rushforth at oracle.com (Kevin Rushforth)
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 17:08:50 -0700
Subject: JDK 9 Rampdown Phase 2
Message-ID: <58CC7A92.4080403@oracle.com>

As a reminder, we are now in Rampdown Phase 2 (RDP2) for JDK 9. This 
applies to JavaFX as well as the rest of the JDK, so any further changes 
to FX 9-dev requires approval. For those who are not on jdk9-dev, please 
see the message [1] that Mark Reinhold sent yesterday.

-- Kevin

[1] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk9-dev/2017-March/005666.html


From textplusline at gmail.com  Sun Mar 19 18:20:38 2017
From: textplusline at gmail.com (Calvin John)
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2017 14:20:38 -0400
Subject: Raspberry Pi Fx Media Librarys
Message-ID: 

I read through a thread that discussed the problems with getting the javafx
media libraries running on the raspberry pi. This was a few years ago and I
wanted to know if the situation has changed since? Also would it work if I
try to compile for linux-arm with the media libraries manually? and if it
does would anyone be able to point me to a guide to how to compile it?

Thanks,

John Calvin

From kevin.rushforth at oracle.com  Mon Mar 20 17:09:22 2017
From: kevin.rushforth at oracle.com (Kevin Rushforth)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 10:09:22 -0700
Subject: [9] Review request: 8177081: visible entity for @ in sample code
 in ImageView
Message-ID: <58D00CC2.5000802@oracle.com>

Please review the following simple doc fix:

https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8177081
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8177081/webrev.00/

Thanks.

-- Kevin


From kevin.rushforth at oracle.com  Mon Mar 20 17:57:00 2017
From: kevin.rushforth at oracle.com (Kevin Rushforth)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 10:57:00 -0700
Subject: [9] [8u] Review request for 8165342: NPE when JavaFX loads default
 stylesheet or font families if CCL is null
Message-ID: <58D017EC.8050408@oracle.com>

Please review the following fix:

JBS: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8165342
9 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8165342/9/webrev.00/
8u webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8165342/8u/webrev.00/

This was initially discovered in JDK 8u and is a regression from  JDK 7. 
It is mostly fixed in JDK 9 already (due to some of the Jigsaw changes), 
but we still have a regression in one area in JDK 9. Since we need to 
fix this for JDK 8u where the problem is more serious, I am sending out 
the webrev for both releases at the same time.

Details are in JBS.

NOTE: once the review is done, I will go through the process of 
approving it for JDK 9.

-- Kevin


From guru.hb at oracle.com  Tue Mar 21 15:02:35 2017
From: guru.hb at oracle.com (Guru Hb)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 20:32:35 +0530
Subject: [9] [8u] Review request for 8177284: HTMLEditor fails to load
 resources from modena.css if security manager is present
Message-ID: 

Hi Kevin & Jonathan,

Please review the fix for: 
JBS: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8177284 
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ghb/8177284/webrev.00/  

RC and solution updated in JBS.

Thanks,
Guru

From kevin.rushforth at oracle.com  Tue Mar 21 15:01:10 2017
From: kevin.rushforth at oracle.com (Kevin Rushforth)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 08:01:10 -0700
Subject: [9] [8u] Review request for 8177284: HTMLEditor fails to load
 resources from modena.css if security manager is present
In-Reply-To: 
References: 
Message-ID: <58D14036.1020809@oracle.com>

Hi Guru,

This is a P3 bug (and not a regression), so is not approved for pushing 
to JDK 9. It can be targeted to 10, however, once the review is 
complete. It should not be backported to either JDK 9 or JDK 8u.

-- Kevin


Guru Hb wrote:
> Hi Kevin & Jonathan,
>
> Please review the fix for: 
> JBS: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8177284
> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ghb/8177284/webrev.00/ 
>  
>
> RC and solution updated in JBS.
>
> Thanks,
> Guru

From Jens.Auer at h-d-gmbh.de  Wed Mar 22 15:36:42 2017
From: Jens.Auer at h-d-gmbh.de (Jens Auer)
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 15:36:42 +0000
Subject: (Swallowed) Nullpointer access in TextFormatter.updateValue
Message-ID: <97a1e8a2db344f2c9b7a384071454144@td-hud-ex01.muc.hd.local>

Hi,

I am using a TextField with a TextFormatter constructed with a predicate:
private TextFormatter.Change validateText(TextFormatter.Change c) { ... }
...
this.textInput.setTextFormatter(new TextFormatter<>(this::validateText));

While debugging some other problem I realized that the Debugger stops with a Nullpointer access in TextFormatter.updateValue:
    void updateValue(String text) {
        if (!value.isBound()) {
            try {
                V v = valueConverter.fromString(text);
                setValue(v);
            } catch (Exception e) {
                updateText(); // Set the text with the latest value
            }
        }
    }

The member valueConverter may not be initialized in the constructor and thus can be null. Even though the exception is caught and swallowed, I would consider this an issue.

Cheers,
Jens

Jens Auer
(Softwareentwicklung)
___________________________________________________________
Unternehmensberatung H & D GmbH
Niederlassung Wei?enthurm
Werftstr. 5 - 56575 Wei?enthurm
Tel.:            02637/94238 -110
Fax:            02637/94238 -149
jens.auer at h-d-gmbh.de
http://www.h-d-gmbh.de
http://www.h-d-gmbh.de/impressum.html
___________________________________________________________


From kevin.rushforth at oracle.com  Wed Mar 22 17:25:38 2017
From: kevin.rushforth at oracle.com (Kevin Rushforth)
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 10:25:38 -0700
Subject: [9] Review request: 8177412: Remove unused third-party code from
 WebKit sources
Message-ID: <58D2B392.3020209@oracle.com>

Hi Guru and Arun,

Please review the following:

https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8177412
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8177412/webrev.00/

This removed the unused code listed in the bug description. The product 
code is unaffected by this fix.

-- Kevin


From david.dehaven at oracle.com  Thu Mar 23 16:33:07 2017
From: david.dehaven at oracle.com (David DeHaven)
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 09:33:07 -0700
Subject: [9] RfR: 8177428: [test] Ensemble cannot play AudioClip files when
 running in Java 8 and hosted over http
Message-ID: 


Kevin, please review this fix for the Ensemble test app. The bug affects JDK 8 so will need to be back ported.

JBS issue:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8177428

Webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ddehaven/8177428/rt.v0/

-DrD-


From ajit.ghaisas at oracle.com  Fri Mar 24 04:26:23 2017
From: ajit.ghaisas at oracle.com (Ajit Ghaisas)
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 21:26:23 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [10] Review request: JDK-8088436 : [ColorPicker] When focusing on a
 non 100% opacity color, the color is displayed incorrect.
Message-ID: <9f72a445-b15f-4882-96c4-f43461e9c75a@default>

Hi Jonathan,

 

    Request you to review below fix for ColorPicker control -

 

    Bug : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8088436

    Fix : http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aghaisas/fx/8088436/webrev.0/

 

    I have also attached before and after screenshots to the bug in JBS.

 

Regards,

Ajit

From ajit.ghaisas at oracle.com  Fri Mar 24 05:34:32 2017
From: ajit.ghaisas at oracle.com (Ajit Ghaisas)
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 22:34:32 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [10] Review request: JDK-8090012 : ColorPicker, undefined custom
 color has blank tooltip.
Message-ID: <1f722a9c-10e3-4f98-b38c-4f824aafcb98@default>

Hi Jonathan,

??? Request you to review below fix for ColorPicker control -

??? Bug : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8090012
??? Fix : http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aghaisas/fx/8090012/webrev.0/

Regards,
Ajit

From chris.bensen at oracle.com  Fri Mar 24 15:35:25 2017
From: chris.bensen at oracle.com (Chris Bensen)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 08:35:25 -0700
Subject: [9] Review request: 8177451 javapackager -help prints help message of
 java -help
Message-ID: 

Kevin,

Please review this fix to the javapackager.exe launcher. My last change, I thought I had tested it thoroughly but I made a mistake where I put one of the quotes but I also noticed some other problems. So it?s now launching as a modular application as well. This time I?ve carefully tested it and we?re good.

JIRA: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8177451
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~cbensen/JDK-8177451/webrev.00/

Chris

From kevin.rushforth at oracle.com  Fri Mar 24 16:58:36 2017
From: kevin.rushforth at oracle.com (Kevin Rushforth)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 09:58:36 -0700
Subject: JDK 9 Rampdown Phase 2
In-Reply-To: <58CC7A92.4080403@oracle.com>
References: <58CC7A92.4080403@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <58D5503C.2010601@oracle.com>

I will be offline next week. In my absence, I delegate authority to 
approve critical JDK 9 bugs to Phil Race.

-- Kevin


Kevin Rushforth wrote:
> As a reminder, we are now in Rampdown Phase 2 (RDP2) for JDK 9. This 
> applies to JavaFX as well as the rest of the JDK, so any further 
> changes to FX 9-dev requires approval. For those who are not on 
> jdk9-dev, please see the message [1] that Mark Reinhold sent yesterday.
>
> -- Kevin
>
> [1] 
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk9-dev/2017-March/005666.html
>

From ajit.ghaisas at oracle.com  Mon Mar 27 06:55:55 2017
From: ajit.ghaisas at oracle.com (Ajit Ghaisas)
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2017 23:55:55 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [10] Review request: JDK-8089193 : Width of menu is affected by
 mnemonic-identifier
Message-ID: <39723ffb-337c-4899-a38e-c69c1b0c0b1c@default>

Hi Jonathan,

??? Request you to review below fix -

??? Bug : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8089193
??? Fix : http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aghaisas/fx/8089193/webrev.0/

Regards,
Ajit

From ajit.ghaisas at oracle.com  Mon Mar 27 11:04:26 2017
From: ajit.ghaisas at oracle.com (Ajit Ghaisas)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 04:04:26 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [10] Review request : JDK-8089875 : MenuBarSkin does not update if a
 menu changes its visibility.
Message-ID: 

Hi Jonathan,

    Request you to review following fix :
    Menus that were added after MenuBarSkin construction never used to trigger UI rebuilding if their visible property changed.

    Bug : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8089875 

    Fix : http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aghaisas/fx/8089875/webrev.0/

Regards,
Ajit

From philip.race at oracle.com  Tue Mar 28 23:05:15 2017
From: philip.race at oracle.com (Philip Race)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 16:05:15 -0700
Subject: RFR: 8177751: Update FX implementation to prepare renaming of Module
 and Layer classes
Message-ID: <58DAEC2B.6020408@oracle.com>

David, Vadim, Jonathan, Guru - please review.

Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8177751
webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~prr/8177751/

In tidying up the module system API towards the end of the release,
the jigsaw team have determined that Module and Layer classes are
core concepts like Class and need to be moved into java.lang out of
java.lang.reflect. See links in the bug for more details.

There are references to these classes in javafx. Notably in the launcher.
If the jigsaw change is pushed without FX being updated first all FX
apps will simply cease to work - there is an exception on start up.

The change here is to use reflection to find the actual class at runtime.
This therefore works both before + after the proposed change.

The exact "wording" of the changes, eg notably things like the javadoc
changes are not important as we'll revert these back later once the
jigsaw changes are in promoted builds and so forth.

The ModuleAccess class will likely disappear again too.

So the important issue here is whether it works.

I've built + tested against jdk9 (without the package change) and
the jake forest (with the package change) and all tests I've run
(gradle test, controls tests, Ensemble) seem to work fine.

We've looked hard for any other places that may be affected and think
what is in this webrev is all. Still it would be helpful if folks familiar
with particular areas could check for any problems they may know about.

-phil.



From David.Hill at Oracle.com  Thu Mar 30 17:50:24 2017
From: David.Hill at Oracle.com (David Hill)
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 13:50:24 -0400
Subject: review: Generate bss for all css files, remove TODO
Message-ID: <58DD4560.3030000@Oracle.com>


Jonathan,
    please review this change automating the CSS to BSS conversion in our build
The list of 6 newly converted files as well as the existing ones are in the JBS.
So 9 existing plus 6 new = 15.

https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8174944
webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ddhill/8174944/

-- 
David Hill
Java Embedded Development

"A man's feet should be planted in his country, but his eyes should survey the world."
-- George Santayana (1863 - 1952)


From david.grieve at oracle.com  Thu Mar 30 17:57:45 2017
From: david.grieve at oracle.com (David Grieve)
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 13:57:45 -0400
Subject: review: Generate bss for all css files, remove TODO
In-Reply-To: <58DD4560.3030000@Oracle.com>
References: <58DD4560.3030000@Oracle.com>
Message-ID: <856d76a1-bdd0-0aa3-e7d3-c22e087519bc@oracle.com>

The question I have about this change is, do you necessarily want all of 
the css/bss files that may be in that directory in the dist? If someone 
adds a css file in the future, should it be a conscience decision to put 
it into the dist?


On 3/30/17 1:50 PM, David Hill wrote:
>
> Jonathan,
>    please review this change automating the CSS to BSS conversion in 
> our build
> The list of 6 newly converted files as well as the existing ones are 
> in the JBS.
> So 9 existing plus 6 new = 15.
>
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8174944
> webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ddhill/8174944/
>


From David.Hill at Oracle.com  Thu Mar 30 18:38:26 2017
From: David.Hill at Oracle.com (David Hill)
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 14:38:26 -0400
Subject: review: Generate bss for all css files, remove TODO
In-Reply-To: <856d76a1-bdd0-0aa3-e7d3-c22e087519bc@oracle.com>
References: <58DD4560.3030000@Oracle.com>
 <856d76a1-bdd0-0aa3-e7d3-c22e087519bc@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <58DD50A2.80707@Oracle.com>

On 3/30/17, 1:57 PM, David Grieve wrote:
> The question I have about this change is, do you necessarily want all of the css/bss files that may be in that directory in the dist? If someone adds a css file in the future, should it be a conscience decision to put it into the dist?
David,

Certainly a valid question, and one that was answered "yes", at least so far.
We already as shipping the .css files but only converting some of them.

This change means we ship the bss to go with them.

The gradle code block can easily tolerate the addition of exclusions if needed.

The other part of the question was if we even should ship the .css files a all and css2bin. To shorten a long conversation, continuing to do so allows widget developers access to them, access we have no other standard way of providing.

Dave
>
>
> On 3/30/17 1:50 PM, David Hill wrote:
>>
>> Jonathan,
>>    please review this change automating the CSS to BSS conversion in our build
>> The list of 6 newly converted files as well as the existing ones are in the JBS.
>> So 9 existing plus 6 new = 15.
>>
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8174944
>> webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ddhill/8174944/
>>
>


-- 
David Hill
Java Embedded Development

"A man's feet should be planted in his country, but his eyes should survey the world."
-- George Santayana (1863 - 1952)