On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 09:53:55 GMT, Alexey Ivanov <aiva...@openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Did further investigation on JDK-7116070 (name truncation issue) and found 
>> its [MS 
>> structure](https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/drivers/audio/extended-capabilities-from-a-wdm-audio-driver)
>>  limitation, this structure can accommodate max 31 char only for _szPname_ . 
>> 
>> Workflow :
>> **PLATFORM_API_WinOS_Ports.c** loading the description with the help of 
>> _mixerGetDevCapsW_ function and result will be stored into the 
>> [MIXERCAPSW](https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/mmeapi/ns-mmeapi-mixercapsw)
>>  structure and in this max size for _szPname_ is 31 char. 
>> In my analysis this is a limitation and we can't do anything more,  let me 
>> know if you are aware any alternative solution for this.
>
>> Did further investigation on JDK-7116070 (name truncation issue) and found 
>> its [MS 
>> structure](https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/drivers/audio/extended-capabilities-from-a-wdm-audio-driver)
>>  limitation, this structure can accommodate max 31 char only for _szPname_ .
>> 
>> Workflow : **PLATFORM_API_WinOS_Ports.c** loading the description with the 
>> help of _mixerGetDevCapsW_ function and result will be stored into the 
>> [MIXERCAPSW](https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/mmeapi/ns-mmeapi-mixercapsw)
>>  structure and in this max size for _szPname_ is 31 char. In my analysis 
>> this is a limitation and we can't do anything more, let me know if you are 
>> aware any alternative solution for this.
> 
> @Renjithkannath Please, add this evaluation to 
> [JDK-7116070](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-7116070). The bug itself 
> can be closed as *External*: we can do nothing about it, it's a limitation of 
> Windows API.
> 
> If Java migrates to a newer audio API, JDK-7116070 will be resolved.

Thanks @aivanov-jdk, I have closed  JDK-7116070 marked as _External_ by adding 
evaluation into comment.

-------------

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/14898#issuecomment-1761250669

Reply via email to