Yes, it should get 2d review and I will look at this soon as priorities
permit but the *conclusion* is that the client team
ask that such changes go into the client forest. If this is a problem for
you then we will do it on your behalf. We do not want client changes
directly into dev. That is a very polite but firm request.
-phil.
On 2/7/2014 1:54 PM, Henry Jen wrote:
Thanks Joe for reviewing.
I would like to get 2d developer review as well before pushing this,
let me know if that's not necessary.
Also there was a discussion ealier on whether such change should go to
client or jdk9/dev repo, do we have a conclusion?
Cheers,
Henry
On 02/05/2014 06:01 PM, Joe Darcy wrote:
Hi Henry,
On 02/05/2014 12:19 PM, Henry Jen wrote:
Hi,
Please review the webrev to clean up raw and unchecked warnings in
com.sun.imageio packag at,
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~henryjen/jdk9/8033716/0/webrev/
The more significant change in this webrev is that I have changed the
clone() method of MarkerSegment-derived classes to return exact type
rather than Object. Otherwise, it's basically add type information and
eliminate cast no longer needed.
Cheers,
Henry
I looked over the changes and they generally look good. I've taken a
closer look at the clone-related changes.
The types SOSMarkerSegment, SOFMarkerSegment, MarkerSegment, etc. are
call package-private and all have had their Object-returning clone
methods replaced with a self-type returning clone method, a covariant
override.
Since there are no other potential subclasses of these com.sun.* type
that would already have had a covariant override of clone, I believe the
changes to clone on these three methods is fine. (This avoid the hazards
outlined in JDK-7140820: (coll) Add covariant overrides to Collections
clone methods.)
Thanks,
-Joe
