> On Jul 12, 2019, at 1:02 PM, Phil Race <philip.r...@oracle.com> wrote:
>
>> 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
OK
> (2) I don't know why at 1034 you changed from PrinterIOException to
> PrinterException.
There is no PrinterIOException constructor which accepts a String as its only
parameter and there is no IOException to pass to a PrinterIOException
constructor.
> And whilst great you are fixing up this code, we are but a small fraction of
> the world's code
> that use java.io <http://java.io/> and I wonder if this is worth the
> compatibility risk ?
I’m not sure either. I was leaving that decision to the CSR process.
Thanks,
Brian
