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.
