<AWT Dev> [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] Review Request for 6879044

Igor Nekrestyanov Igor.Nekrestyanov at Sun.COM
Fri Sep 25 04:47:49 PDT 2009

We have discussed this with Anthony and Andrei offline and they do not 
seem to have any blocking concerns.

There is one suggestion though - there should be simple explanation for 
"are there any changes required on the end user side
to enable logging and if so, what are they". Logging is mostly used to 
get details from remote user and ideally
instructions that were sent to such users (i.e. "if you have 
focus-related issue please do this and send us this") should not change
(or it should be explained how they are changing).

Anthony/Andrei, please speak up if you have other concerns.


On 9/23/09 5:08 AM, Anthony Petrov wrote:
> On 09/23/2009 03:41 PM, Alan Bateman wrote:
>>> If AWT initialized the loggers lazily, and only did it when the 
>>> logging is actually enabled (checking for some system property, or 
>>> whatever other way), would we still be statically linked to the 
>>> j.u.logging package in case of a regular client application that 
>>> does not use/enable logging explicitly?
>> Yes, minimally they should be created lazily (this is one of the 
>> suggestions that Mandy listed in 6880089). That would at least avoid 
>> initializing all these loggers. The static dependency remains.
> Ah, I just looked over the PlatformLogger code, and now I see it uses 
> reflection to access the j.u.logging.* classes. Now this point is clear.
> Have it been discussed whether that is feasible to modify the VM in 
> order to eliminate the static dependency if a particular object never 
> gets initialized?
> It just looks kind of artificial to create such proxy classes. I bet 
> we'll need plenty of them for other modules. Won't the code be messed 
> up too much?
> -- 
> best regards,
> Anthony

More information about the awt-dev mailing list