Not my call, but in PSPrinterJob.java (970-977) it might be cleaner to just
delete the unused code and comment.
Dilemma - since at 1036 we are throwing an Exception and the comment at 970-ish
suggests
the author was intending to do what s/he did at 1036 but never got around to it.
I think I'd be more inclined to make the code at 970 like that at 1036.
But
(1) then the comment surely can go
(2) I don't know why at 1034 you changed from PrinterIOException to
PrinterException.
And whilst great you are fixing up this code, we are but a small fraction of
the world's code
that use java.io and I wonder if this is worth the compatibility risk ?
-phil
On 7/12/19 12:54 PM, Brian Burkhalter wrote:
Here is new webrev incorporating the two changes below.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bpb/8187898/webrev.01/
Thanks,
Brian
On Jul 12, 2019, at 12:01 PM, Brian Burkhalter <brian.burkhal...@oracle.com>
wrote:
On Jul 12, 2019, at 11:17 AM, Roger Riggs <roger.ri...@oracle.com
<mailto:roger.ri...@oracle.com>> wrote:
Would it be appropriate to add @Override to the new method (and perhaps
existing overridden methods).
Yes, I think so.
Previously, calling FilterOutputStream.write(byte[]) would delegate to
write(byte[], 0, length).
The proposed change duplicates the code and changes the ways that overridden
classes might see the call.
What's the benefit of duplicating the code and calling out.write(buf)?
Probably nothing. Probably better to call write(b,0,b.length) directly.
Not my call, but in PSPrinterJob.java (970-977) it might be cleaner to just
delete the unused code and comment.
I agree but I was waiting for a suggestion from a 2D reviewer.
