[OpenJDK 2D-Dev] OpenJDK Warning hackathon :) - patch 1

[Mario Torre]

Il giorno 03/dic/2011, alle ore 01:02, Jim Graham ha scritto:
> Phil described my take on it pretty well, but I do see your point about hiding where they come from.
> 
> If I had to do it over again I might put them into an interface that SG2D, the SD's and other pipeline objects could all inherit with an "implements" since the constants are so intimately shared.  Josh Bloch has spoken against that usage, though, since the constants then become part of the API of all of those classes, but in our case this is internal API so we don't have to worry about binary compatibility outside of a given release.
> 
> If we did it that way, that would likely be beyond the scope of this current exercise since the goal is to not change any APIs (even internal ones) to isolate the warnings changes (as simple as this change is).  On the other hand, other fixes involve declaring more specific types for internal generified objects which also changes API, so this is a fuzzy line in the sand.
> 
> Interestingly, both a static import of * and moving the constants to a shared interface would both result in the constants simply being referenced without a qualifier.
> 
> Finally, I have had, in the back of my head, the thought that we should eventually try to move all of the constants into a single field as much as possible since they bloat the SG2D object by so much which just wastes memory and cycles to create and clone them.  Doing that would likely require a lot of bitmasking which would likely lead to a helper class which would be a completely different rewrite of all of this code.
> 
> I'm happy to approve whichever version Mario wants to promote (except the rewrite to bitfields which is clearly outside the scope here) since he is doing the work though...
> 
> 			...jim

Hi Jim,

Thanks a lot for the reply.

I've been thinking about that also, and to be honest I am still undecided which version I prefer (static import vs fully qualification) exactly because of what you say.

I like the idea to refactor those fields too.

Since the scope of this exercise is not a complete rewrite of the code, I'll push the current version as is from my latest webrev, but I'll start working on a more complete refactoring for the next weeks, at least to explore what would be the benefit of it over the current approach.

Thanks again.

Cheers,
Mario
---
pgp key: http://subkeys.pgp.net/ PGP Key ID: 80F240CF
Fingerprint: BA39 9666 94EC 8B73 27FA  FC7C 4086 63E3 80F2 40CF

http://www.ladybug-studio.com

IcedRobot: www.icedrobot.org
Proud GNU Classpath developer: http://www.classpath.org/
Read About us at: http://planet.classpath.org
OpenJDK: http://openjdk.java.net/projects/caciocavallo/

Please, support open standards:
http://endsoftpatents.org/