That's the first time the pentium bug ever worked in my favor... ;)

The changes look good to me. approved (with a lower case 'a', since I'm not a 
Reviewer with an upper case 'R').

-DrD-

> 1) Redundant return removed.
> 
> 2) Kumar and I talked: Ever since the pentium bug, 1 in 80 trillion seems a 
> big risk .. so the code was changed to
>    check for equality with the whole class name:
> 
>    private static final String JAVAFX_FXHELPER_CLASS_NAME_SUFFIX =
>            "sun.launcher.LauncherHelper$FXHelper";
>   ...
> 
>        if (JAVAFX_FXHELPER_CLASS_NAME_SUFFIX.equals(mainClass.getName()) ||
>            doesExtendFXApplication(mainClass)) {
>            // Will abort() if there are problems with FX runtime
>            FXHelper.setFXLaunchParameters(what, mode);
>            return FXHelper.class;
>        }
> 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> -neil
> 
> On 5/1/2014 8:05 AM, David DeHaven wrote:
>> Do we care about the 1 in more than 80 trillion case where the third party 
>> Main-Class would be named "LauncherHelper$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
>>>> 
>>>> 
> 

Reply via email to