On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 02:40:02 GMT, Jeremy Wood <d...@openjdk.org> wrote:

>> There were a few action bindings available in JPasswordFields in Aqua that 
>> let you identify the boundaries of words.
>> 
>> This came to my attention while looking at the related work 
>> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/25443 . In that PR we said we should 
>> iterate across all available L&Fs, so this PR copies that same approach. 
>> (The original complaint only focused on Aqua, though.)
>
> IMO this PR is a simple response that interfaces with an existing method. I 
> recommend this approach because it should be relatively low-risk, and it is 
> based on existing precedent.
> 
> By contrast: #25443 does something more aggressive (and interesting). It 
> replaces selectWordAction with selectLineAction. That looks (to me) like a 
> more thorough/better approach to the general problem of accidentally 
> interacting with words in a password field. This PR should resolve any 
> *KeyStroke-based* actions, but in JDK-8354646 the original complaint had to 
> do with double-clicking the mouse; so this PR wouldn't impact those steps.
> 
> I haven't explored this thoroughly yet, but glancing through the 
> AccessibleJTextField suggests an AX interface could still have access (via 
> AccessibleActions) to the word-related actions we're trying to restrict 
> access to. If so: this problem (accessing words in a password field) keeps 
> popping up, and removing/replacing the unwanted actions seems like the most 
> thorough response.
> 
> (Also see JDK-6191897 and JDK-4231444 ).

@mickleness You should associate your GitHub account with your OpenJDK id, 
follow the instructions in [Associating your GitHub account and your OpenJDK 
username](https://wiki.openjdk.org/display/SKARA/#Skara-AssociatingyourGitHubaccountandyourOpenJDKusername).

After that, I also recommend following the instructions in the [OpenJDK 
Email](https://wiki.openjdk.org/display/SKARA/#Skara-OpenJDKEmail) section.

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25688#issuecomment-3163574304

Reply via email to