<Swing Dev> <AWT Dev> [9] Review Request: 8143077 Deprecate InputEvent._MASK in favor of InputEvent._DOWN_MASK

[Sergey Bylokhov]

> 19 дек. 2016 г., в 22:28, Sergey Bylokhov <Sergey.Bylokhov at oracle.com> написал(а):
> 
> Hello.
> Please review an updated version of the fix.
>  - The comments are updated.
> Two additional public api are deprecated:
>  - KeyEvent.getKeyModifiersText()
>  - AWTEvent(Event event)
> 
> Note that I have to add @SuppressWarnings("deprecation») in places where the old API is used, because the option which ignores this warning was removed from the makefile. We will need to fix all of them one by one in jdk10, I’ll file a CR for this.

Ouch the link is:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~serb/8143077/webrev.04/ <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~serb/8143077/webrev.04/>

> 
>> On 10/26/2016 6:43 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
>>> On 25.10.16 18:46, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
>>>>> I wonder why he should decide that the old code can be "simply
>>>>> replaced" by the new one? I suppose that at least he should read the
>>>>> specification of the new extended API. There is no notion that this
>>>>> api is replaced by the new one, there is a recommendation that the new
>>>>> one should be used instead.
>>>> After reading such recommendation it's hard to conclude that one "should
>>>> read the specification of the new extended API". Even "@see" tag
>>>> pointing to the extended API is not provided (I'm not even mentioning
>>>> the warning that the extended API may be nonequivalent replacement is
>>>> absent). I read this recommendation as it is: replace one constant with
>>>> another, no side effects expected.
>>> 
>>> Good to know that you don't read the specification of the methods before using. So what is your proposal? Should I add a notion that these extendent constants contains different int values, and if the user depends from them in some way then he should not replace the old one to the new one? Or what @see reference should be added from some fields to another?
>> The proposal is the same to notify user that he/she should not only replace the constant but start to use another API. It's up to you how to formulate this. If I did this in minimalistic way I would write:
>> 
>> @deprecated It is recommended that SHIFT_DOWN_MASK and {@link getModifiersEx()} be used instead.
>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>>> We already have a notions that these "extended modifier constant"
>>>>>>> should be used in the constructor of InputEvent and moreover in spec
>>>>>>> of getModifiersEx() we have an additional examples how to use this
>>>>>>> constants. This is why we will have a reference from old constans to
>>>>>>> the new, and from getModifiers() to the getModifiersEx();
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/swing-dev/attachments/20161219/a81e8684/attachment.html>