> On Jul 12, 2019, at 1:02 PM, Phil Race <philip.r...@oracle.com> wrote: > >> Not my call, but in PSPrinterJob.java (970-977) it might be cleaner to just >> delete the unused code and comment. > > Dilemma - since at 1036 we are throwing an Exception and the comment at > 970-ish suggests > the author was intending to do what s/he did at 1036 but never got around to > it. > > I think I'd be more inclined to make the code at 970 like that at 1036. > But > (1) then the comment surely can go
OK > (2) I don't know why at 1034 you changed from PrinterIOException to > PrinterException. There is no PrinterIOException constructor which accepts a String as its only parameter and there is no IOException to pass to a PrinterIOException constructor. > And whilst great you are fixing up this code, we are but a small fraction of > the world's code > that use java.io <http://java.io/> and I wonder if this is worth the > compatibility risk ? I’m not sure either. I was leaving that decision to the CSR process. Thanks, Brian
