Do we care about the 1 in more than 80 trillion case where the third party Main-Class would be named "LauncherHelper$FXHelper"? I think the probability is extremely unlikely so I'm fine with it the way it's written.
LauncherHelper.java: 590 return; Redundant return statement? -DrD- > For completeness the bugid line needs the bugid as shown, otherwise SQE will > open > another bug to have you fix this. > > -26 * @bug 8001533 8004547 > +26 * @bug 8001533 8004547 8035782 > > other than that it looks good, I can push this with the above change. > > Anyone else have any concerns with this change before I push ? > > Thanks > Kumar > > > On 4/30/2014 1:47 PM, Neil Toda wrote: >> >> Please review Launcher change and test. >> >> I've added to the Launcher test : FXLauncherTest.java >> The test will now check that LauncherHelper$FXHelper is not loaded for >> non-JavaFX class and jar files. >> >> webrev.02 contains only review suggestions from webrev.01 and the new test >> class. >> >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ntoda/8035782/webrev.02/ >> >> for bug: >> >> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8035782 >> >> Thanks >> >> -neil >> >> >
