On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 03:33:21 GMT, Prasanta Sadhukhan <psadhuk...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> javadoc contract for JComponent.setMinimumSize(Dimension) states: >> >> "Sets the minimum size of this component to a constant value. Subsequent >> calls to getMinimumSize will always return this value..." >> >> However, JScrollBar overrides getMinimumSize() and breaks this contract - it >> always returns a minimum size derived from the preferred size even if you >> have previously called setMinimumSize() >> >> Fix is made to check if mnimumSize is set and if so, honour it.. > > Prasanta Sadhukhan has updated the pull request incrementally with one > additional commit since the last revision: > > Override set*Methods and update spec > > That is we preserve the current behaviour of `getMinimumSize()` and > > `getMaximumSize()` methods in `JScrollBar`, yet if `setMinimumSize()` or > > `setMaximumSize()` is called, the corresponding `get-` methods return the > > set value and thus they follow the contract specified in `JComponent`. > > @prrace, could you confirm, please? > > I already mentioned to him in this comment [#15325 > (comment)](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/15325#issuecomment-1818768822) > that moving back to initial fix iteration will cause the same problem as you > mentioned [#15325 > (comment)](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/15325#issuecomment-1796167220) > which is the same what we observed when we removed these 2 getXXX methods > (which was mentioned in hmuller comment) so if we are OK with the change in > behaviour as compared to current, then removing these 2 methods may be > considered as compared to moving to 1st iteration of this fix... Right. The change in behaviour will still be there. Personally, I think we should keep the current behaviour and document it. At the same time, I accept what Phil suggested: the behaviour remains the same unless `setMinimumSize()` or `setMaximumSize()` are called. The latter relies on [the assumptions](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/15325#issuecomment-1816933906): > I suspect very few apps actually call these since they are complete no-ops > today. Phil notes: > If we do that, then yes, you'll still see differences if you do call those > APIs and forgot about it because it didn't make a difference. Hence, there's a risk to break those few apps. This is why I prefer Phil's second suggestion: > If that isn't going to work, then, I think we should fall back to the pure > documentation solution. > Well, almost pure docs, but not quite, because we need a no-op over-ride of > `set*` on which to place the docs. This way, no app could be broken because the behaviour doesn't change, but the specification for `JScrollBar` changes. ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/15325#issuecomment-1874490256
