<Swing Dev> [10][JDK-8190281] Code cleanup in src\java.desktop\share\classes\javax\swing\tree\VariableHeightLayoutCache.java
Prasanta Sadhukhan
prasanta.sadhukhan at oracle.com
Wed Dec 13 08:48:00 UTC 2017
+1
Regards
Prasanta
On 12/13/2017 2:12 PM, Krishna Addepalli wrote:
>
> Hi Prasanta,
>
> Here is the webrev with suggested changes:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kaddepalli/8190281/webrev05/
> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Ekaddepalli/8190281/webrev05/>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Krishna
>
> *From:*Prasanta Sadhukhan
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 13, 2017 10:42 AM
> *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
>
> But there is no compulsion that we need to store getRowCount() in
> "max". You can store in some other variable and then "max" point to
> that in the loop.
>
> Regards
> Prasanta
>
> On 12/12/2017 9:51 PM, Krishna Addepalli wrote:
>
> Hi Prasanta,
>
> The getRowCount() calls l955,956 cannot be removed, since max
> variable is getting modified in the while loop at l945. There is
> no guarantee that max will still hold the getRowCount() after the
> loop exits. So, those calls cannot be removed.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Krishna
>
> *From:*Prasanta Sadhukhan
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 12, 2017 8:08 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
>
> As told, you overlooked l955,956
>
> Regards
> Prasanta
>
> On 12/12/2017 7:37 PM, Krishna Addepalli wrote:
>
> Oops! My bad. Created a new webrev here with the correction:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kaddepalli/8190281/webrev04/
> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Ekaddepalli/8190281/webrev04/>
>
> *From:*Prasanta Sadhukhan
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 12, 2017 7:05 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
>
> You missed using the variable at l933
>
> Regards
> Prasanta
>
> On 12/12/2017 5:21 PM, Krishna Addepalli wrote:
>
> Hi Prasanta,
>
> Did the change for caching the result of calling
> “getRowCount()” into a variable, as pointed out by you,
> and here is the new webrev:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kaddepalli/8190281/webrev03/
> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Ekaddepalli/8190281/webrev03/>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Krishna
>
> *From:*Prasanta Sadhukhan
> *Sent:* Monday, December 11, 2017 7:24 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
>
> 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>
> <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,
>
> 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/20171213/424e7622/attachment.html>
More information about the swing-dev
mailing list