On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 19:22:02 GMT, Sergey Bylokhov <s...@openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Phil Race has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional 
>> commit since the last revision:
>> 
>>   8359053
>
> src/java.desktop/share/classes/java/awt/Window.java line 3864:
> 
>> 3862:                 content.setOpaque(isOpaque);
>> 3863: 
>> 3864:                 // Iterate down one level to see whether we have (eg) 
>> a JInternalFrame
> 
> I think it is more related to top level windows like JWindow/JDialog etc.

I am not sure that's the case. I think it best to leave the comment as it is - 
minus mention of applet.

> src/java.desktop/share/classes/javax/imageio/spi/IIORegistry.java line 113:
> 
>> 111:      * registry functions.
>> 112:      *
>> 113:      * <p> Each {@code ThreadGroup} will receive its own instance.
> 
> Note that this new specification is not tied to AppContext. Do we still want 
> to support ThreadGroup sandboxing even if AppContext will be removed? Can we 
> drop it now, since current spec clearly tied to applets and AppContext usage?

AppContext is really a ThreadGroup so it will behave as specified.
Changing this needs to be done in a separate follow-up bug likely with a 
CSR-specific to ImageIO, removing the ThreadGroup support.
Not in this PR. I submitted  https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8359391

> src/java.desktop/share/classes/javax/swing/BufferStrategyPaintManager.java 
> line 796:
> 
>> 794:             BufferStrategy bs = null;
>> 795:             try {
>> 796:                 ((Window)root).createBufferStrategy(2, caps);
> 
> We probably can change the type of "root" to "Window".

There would be quite a ripple effect because callers are handed a container 
from other methods. Adds risk I don't need here.
Seems like a possible follow-on clean up bug.

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

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25698#discussion_r2143723251
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25698#discussion_r2143714809
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25698#discussion_r2143708779

Reply via email to