Looks fine.

> 7 дек. 2016 г., в 2:24, Dmitry Markov <dmitry.mar...@oracle.com> написал(а):
> 
> Hi Sergey,
> 
> I agree, it is not necessary to increase the toolkit counter here. It is a 
> copy-paste error. I am sorry about that. Please find the updated webrev here: 
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dmarkov/8165428/webrev.02/ 
> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dmarkov/8165428/webrev.02/>
> 
> Thanks,
> Dmitry 
>> On 07 Dec 2016, at 03:40, Sergey Bylokhov <sergey.bylok...@oracle.com 
>> <mailto:sergey.bylok...@oracle.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> This logic looks better by it is unclear why you increase the toolkit’s 
>> counter?
>> [AWTToolkit eventCountPlusPlus];
>> This counter should be increased in the native callbacks and should indicate 
>> that there are some activity on the toolkit thread. But it seems it is 
>> unnecessary in the new isBlocked() method?
>> 
>>> 2 дек. 2016 г., в 3:16, dmitry markov <dmitry.mar...@oracle.com 
>>> <mailto:dmitry.mar...@oracle.com>> написал(а):
>>> 
>>> Hi Sergey,
>>> 
>>> According to the current implementation we disable a window only when we 
>>> are going to show a modal dialog. However I agree it is not a good idea to 
>>> use isEnabled flag for testing whether the window is blocked or not, since 
>>> such logic is not clear and might be accidentally broken. So I have updated 
>>> the fix; new webrev is located at 
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dmarkov/8165428/webrev.01/ 
>>> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dmarkov/8165428/webrev.01/>
>>> Summary of changes:
>>> - Added a new function isBlocked() to CPlatformWindow class
>>> - In AWTWindow.m use isBlocked() instead of isEnabled in the cases where we 
>>> have to decide whether the ordering operation is required or not.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Dmitry
>>> On 01/12/2016 03:29, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
>>>> Hi, Dmitry.
>>>> Is it true that the window is disable only if blocked by some other 
>>>> window? Is it possible a situation when it can be disabled by application 
>>>> and in the same moment can have an enabled child which should be moved 
>>>> upfront?
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 

Reply via email to