<Swing Dev> [10][JDK-8190281] Code cleanup in src\java.desktop\share\classes\javax\swing\tree\VariableHeightLayoutCache.java

[Prasanta Sadhukhan]

On 12/11/2017 4:16 PM, Krishna Addepalli wrote:
>
> Hi Prasanta,
>
> Yes, you are right, but as I mentioned earlier, that would need to 
> make one variable declaration for caching before trivial reject case, 
> which I wanted to avoid.
>
> As for the body of getRowCount() it is just returning 
> “visibleNodes.size()”, which shouldn’t be a (performance)problem if 
> called 2 times as I understand.
>
But, the whole premise of changing getRowCount() <=0  was that it can be 
overridden and return -ve. Left to present implementation, we would not 
have needed "less than" check.
So, if we are changing one case because of the above reason, then we 
cannot forego the 2nd case's problem, as it can have any implementation.

Regards
Prasanta
>
> Thanks,
>
> Krishna
>
> *From:*Prasanta Sadhukhan
> *Sent:* Monday, December 11, 2017 4:02 PM
> *To:* Krishna Addepalli <krishna.addepalli at oracle.com>; 
> swing-dev at openjdk.java.net
> *Subject:* Re: <Swing Dev> [10][JDK-8190281] Code cleanup in 
> src\java.desktop\share\classes\javax\swing\tree\VariableHeightLayoutCache.java
>
> Hi Krishna,
>
> My point was we can call getRowCount() once at first and store the 
> result and use it subsequently. There was no need to call it 2-3 times.
>
> Regards
> Prasanta
>
> On 12/11/2017 3:01 PM, Krishna Addepalli wrote:
>
>     Hi Prasanta,
>
>     Thanks for pointing out the “getRowCount()==0” check. Modified it
>     to “getRowCount() <= 0” in the new webrev:
>     http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kaddepalli/8190281/webrev02/
>     <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Ekaddepalli/8190281/webrev02/>
>
>     As for calling the method twice, you are right that we don’t need
>     to call it twice, but in the interest of having trivial reject
>     case first, and then start the variable declarations, had to let
>     be there to be called twice. Precisely for the reason you stated,
>     it shouldn’t matter if we called it twice.
>
>     Thanks,
>
>     Krishna
>
>     *From:*Prasanta Sadhukhan
>     *Sent:* Saturday, December 9, 2017 7:54 PM
>     *To:* Krishna Addepalli <krishna.addepalli at oracle.com>
>     <mailto:krishna.addepalli at oracle.com>; swing-dev at openjdk.java.net
>     <mailto:swing-dev at openjdk.java.net>
>     *Subject:* Re: <Swing Dev> [10][JDK-8190281] Code cleanup in
>     src\java.desktop\share\classes\javax\swing\tree\VariableHeightLayoutCache.java
>
>     Hi Krishna,
>
>     This seems good to me except one thing. You are checking
>     getRowCount() == 0 but there is a chance of test extending
>     VariableHeightLayoutCache and overriding getRowCount to return -ve
>     also as it is an int. In that case, I guess this function will not
>     return -1 which spec mandates [If there are no rows, -1 is
>     returned] so I guess we should check for <=0.
>     Also, there is no need of calling getRowCount() twice as it will
>     not change between 929, 936.
>
>     Regards
>     Prasanta
>
>     On 12/7/2017 4:41 PM, Krishna Addepalli wrote:
>
>         Hi Sergey,
>
>         Per our conversation, I have done the following changes:
>
>         1.Found that the .class size increases by 1kb when streams are
>         used, so reverted the changes related to it.
>
>         2.Moved the “++nextIndex” into the conditional, so that there
>         is no logical change.
>
>         Here is the updated webrev:
>         http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kaddepalli/8190281/webrev01/
>         <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Ekaddepalli/8190281/webrev01/>
>
>         Thanks,
>
>         Krishna
>
>         *From:* Krishna Addepalli
>         *Sent:* Wednesday, December 6, 2017 2:43 PM
>         *To:* swing-dev at openjdk.java.net
>         <mailto:swing-dev at openjdk.java.net>
>         *Subject:* [10][JDK-8190281] Code cleanup in
>         src\java.desktop\share\classes\javax\swing\tree\VariableHeightLayoutCache.java
>
>         Hi All,
>
>         Please review the fix for bug:
>
>         Bug: JDK-8190281 https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8190281
>
>         JDK 10 Webrev:
>         http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kaddepalli/8190281/webrev00/
>         <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Ekaddepalli/8190281/webrev00/>
>
>         This bug was created while root causing JDK-8187936, and the
>         following refactoring points have been addressed:
>
>         1. Line 927: Uninitialized variables, checking for trivial
>         reject case multiple times.
>         2. Line 999: Traditional code written to find maximum size of
>         components, which can be done without any local variables and
>         explicit looping by replacing with streams.
>         3. Line 1365: Code repetition for differenct conditions, which
>         can be ored together to reduce the repetition.
>         4. Line 1482: A large code block gets repeated only because of
>         different values need to be passed in one line. This can be
>         moved to a variable initialization, and the repeating code
>         blocks can be reduced to one.
>         5. Line 1505: Variable initialization can be simplified by
>         combining different conditions.
>         6. Line 1540: An explicit loop to apply a function over a
>         collection, can be achieved in one line by a forEach
>         construct.  – This is producing some visual artifacts, so ignored.
>         7. Line 1747: Combine all the trivial reject cases into one
>         condition, and also, a potential bug which increments the
>         "nextIndex" value beyond the length of the containing
>         elements. The increment should happen only if the trivial
>         reject case fails.
>
>         Thanks,
>
>         Krishna
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/swing-dev/attachments/20171211/6b2f7521/attachment.html>