I suggested to return false because spec says for Shape.getBounds2D() method: "Returns a high precision and more accurate bounding box of the Shape than the getBounds method." and "Shape lies entirely within the indicated Rectangle2D.". Method CubicCurve2D.contains() checks if specified coordinate is inside the boundary of the shape. If point inside the shape it should be inside the bounding box of this shape. According to this, if the bounding box of the CubicCurve2D shape is null or empty then there is not exist any point to be inside these bounds, hence contains() just should return false.
Regards, Ilya. On 9/26/06, Denis Kishenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
2006/9/25, Ilya Okomin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > To follow RI I would suggest to add check (if the bounds2D is null) to the > contains() method, in this case just to return false. Yep, to follow RI we can check if the bounds2D is null but why you suggest return false? I think in this case we have to execute contains() but w/o optimization. It's the fourth possibility. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- -- Ilya Okomin Intel Middleware Products Division
