> 19 дек. 2016 г., в 22:28, Sergey Bylokhov <sergey.bylok...@oracle.com>
> написал(а):
>
> Hello.
> Please review an updated version of the fix.
> - The comments are updated.
> Two additional public api are deprecated:
> - KeyEvent.getKeyModifiersText()
> - AWTEvent(Event event)
>
> Note that I have to add @SuppressWarnings("deprecation») in places where the
> old API is used, because the option which ignores this warning was removed
> from the makefile. We will need to fix all of them one by one in jdk10, I’ll
> file a CR for this.
Ouch the link is:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~serb/8143077/webrev.04/
<http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~serb/8143077/webrev.04/>
>
>> On 10/26/2016 6:43 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
>>> On 25.10.16 18:46, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
>>>>> I wonder why he should decide that the old code can be "simply
>>>>> replaced" by the new one? I suppose that at least he should read the
>>>>> specification of the new extended API. There is no notion that this
>>>>> api is replaced by the new one, there is a recommendation that the new
>>>>> one should be used instead.
>>>> After reading such recommendation it's hard to conclude that one "should
>>>> read the specification of the new extended API". Even "@see" tag
>>>> pointing to the extended API is not provided (I'm not even mentioning
>>>> the warning that the extended API may be nonequivalent replacement is
>>>> absent). I read this recommendation as it is: replace one constant with
>>>> another, no side effects expected.
>>>
>>> Good to know that you don't read the specification of the methods before
>>> using. So what is your proposal? Should I add a notion that these extendent
>>> constants contains different int values, and if the user depends from them
>>> in some way then he should not replace the old one to the new one? Or what
>>> @see reference should be added from some fields to another?
>> The proposal is the same to notify user that he/she should not only replace
>> the constant but start to use another API. It's up to you how to formulate
>> this. If I did this in minimalistic way I would write:
>>
>> @deprecated It is recommended that SHIFT_DOWN_MASK and {@link
>> getModifiersEx()} be used instead.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> We already have a notions that these "extended modifier constant"
>>>>>>> should be used in the constructor of InputEvent and moreover in spec
>>>>>>> of getModifiersEx() we have an additional examples how to use this
>>>>>>> constants. This is why we will have a reference from old constans to
>>>>>>> the new, and from getModifiers() to the getModifiersEx();
>
