<AWT Dev> [9] Review request for 7081580: Specification for MouseInfo.getNumberOfButtons() doesn't contain info about "awt.mouse.numButtons"

[Phil Race]

OK .. yes, it does say that. So there is no central place to find all 
supported
desktop properties ?

-phil.

On 3/17/2015 4:37 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
> Hi, Phil.
> This document is for " desktop properties supported by the AWT but not 
> documented elsewhere - typically because there is no suitable method 
> or class - are documented here."
>
> 17.03.15 16:28, Phil Race wrote:
>> Unless you intend to document that property here :-
>> http://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/awt/doc-files/DesktopProperties.html 
>>
>>
>> maybe it should not be mentioned ..
>>
>> -phil.
>>
>> On 3/17/2015 4:16 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
>>> +1
>>>
>>> 16.03.15 7:32, Anton V. Tarasov wrote:
>>>> Hi Semyon,
>>>>
>>>> As a minimalistic description of the property, this looks ok to me. 
>>>> So, if there's nothing else to say about it, I'm fine with the fix.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Anton.
>>>>
>>>> On 16.03.2015 16:22, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
>>>>> Hi!
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you Anton!
>>>>> The updated webrev is: 
>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~alexsch/semyon-sadetsky/7081580/webrev.01/ 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --Semyon
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 3/12/2015 1:42 PM, Anton V. Tarasov wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Semyon, Sergey,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree with that the modified javadoc is not good.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. When you say something is done "by calling A.b()", it means I 
>>>>>> can write exactly "A.b()" in my code and this will do the job. 
>>>>>> However, that's not the case with Toolkit.getDesktopProperty() 
>>>>>> (it won't be compiled).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In order to refer to a method, you can use either of the 
>>>>>> following constructions:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> a) the A.b() method
>>>>>> b) {@link A#b}
>>>>>> c) the {@link A#b} method
>>>>>>
>>>>>> b/c is preferrable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. When you say "The value is obtained by calling something", 
>>>>>> it's not quite clear what or who obtains the value. The method 
>>>>>> itself? Or this is an alternative way to get it for a user?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3. If this is the only place in the spec where the property is 
>>>>>> introduced, then you should somehow reflect this fact. For 
>>>>>> instance, like this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The value is set by the "awt.mouse.numButtons" property, which 
>>>>>> can be obtained directly with the {@link 
>>>>>> Toolkit#getDesktopProperty} method.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't have to _specify_ the way getNumberOfButtons() obtains 
>>>>>> the property, unless this implementation detail should really be 
>>>>>> specified. (For instance, if it was obtained by a method which 
>>>>>> could be overriden in an application.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Anton.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12.03.2015 11:42, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
>>>>>>> Sorry, Sergey. Still don't understand what you mean.
>>>>>>> The issue is about*to do**mention* "awt.mouse.numButtons".
>>>>>>> Now you are saying that there is no value to mention it for the 
>>>>>>> first time in this spec. Doesn't it contradict to the request 
>>>>>>> itself?
>>>>>>> You couldn't be more specific on what do you want, could you?
>>>>>>> The fix just adds one short statement to the spec. Maybe you'll 
>>>>>>> find it to be more productive to just rephrase as you want and 
>>>>>>> write here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you!
>>>>>>> --Semyon
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3/12/2015 11:11 AM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi, Semyon.
>>>>>>>> That's a specification which should be read as written. But if 
>>>>>>>> you mean this is not the same things, then it is unclear what 
>>>>>>>> value will be added to the description of 
>>>>>>>> "awt.mouse.numButtons" property, which mentions in the 
>>>>>>>> specification for the first time. Since getNumberOfButtons 
>>>>>>>> obtain something not specified from the getToolkit, modify it 
>>>>>>>> somehow(w/o specification) and returns. See for example 
>>>>>>>> Toolkit.getToolkit and Toolkit. areExtraMouseButtonsEnabled(). 
>>>>>>>> It is not necessary write so specific specification but at 
>>>>>>>> least it should be clear.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It would be good to rephrase it somehow.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 12.03.15 0:09, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi Sergey,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I didn't find any mention in the new text that the method 
>>>>>>>>> returns the same value as Tolkit.get... returns.
>>>>>>>>> I'm not an expert in English but in my opinion "obtained by" 
>>>>>>>>> verb doesn't state that the same value is returned without any 
>>>>>>>>> handling.
>>>>>>>>> Maybe you've mixed it up with "proxy"?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>> --Semyon
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 3/12/2015 9:47 AM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Semyon.
>>>>>>>>>> The fix in general is correct, but it adds an assertion that 
>>>>>>>>>> this method should return the same values as Toolkit.get...
>>>>>>>>>> And this is incorrect, and we can get a new CR that 
>>>>>>>>>> implementation don't follow the specification. Probably we 
>>>>>>>>>> can simplify it and state that we use numeric value from 
>>>>>>>>>> desktop property or something like that?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 11.03.15 22:52, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> please review fix for jdk9.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Webrev: 
>>>>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~alexsch/semyon-sadetsky/7081580/webrev.00/ 
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-7081580
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>> --Semyon
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>> Best regards, Sergey.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Best regards, Sergey.
>>
>
>
> -- 
> Best regards, Sergey.