Since the ImageConsumer accepts Hashtable<?,?> my thought is that the
the GifDecoder should declare the field based on what it actually
uses. If the other decoders only use String keys and String values,
then I would suggest we change the field declaration to match.
Yes, it sounds reasonable.
On 10/25/06, Nathan Beyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 10/24/06, Oleg Khaschansky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nathan, could you, please tell why you changed the field properties in
> these classes to
> Hashtable<Object,Object> in two of them and to
> Hashtable<String,String> in one of them (GifDecoder)?
>
> Look at the declaration in the ImageConsumer class:
> void setProperties(Hashtable<?,?> props)
>
> It'd be better to have Hashtable<?,?> as a type in all 3 classes and
> Hashtable<Object,Object> as an initial value for this field.
A field type of Hashtable<?,?> would be painful, as you can't perform
any sets when a type variable is ?. You'd have to cast it to
Hashtable<Object,Object> before performing any sets.
Since the ImageConsumer accepts Hashtable<?,?> my thought is that the
the GifDecoder should declare the field based on what it actually
uses. If the other decoders only use String keys and String values,
then I would suggest we change the field declaration to match.
-Nathan
>
> On 10/24/06, Oleg Khaschansky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Where are the tests for these decoders? How did you determine that
> > > > they no longer worked?
> >
> > Unfortunately, these classes are not covered with the unit tests.
> >
> > I was running a simple test application that did something like this:
> > Toolkit.getDefaultToolkit().getImage("image.jpg");
> > and if failed with a NPE.
> >
> > > I removed the final modifiers
> > At the first glance it seems like the problem doesn't appear any more.
> >
> > > There were only 3-4 other fields that were finalized. Your email
> > > mentioned "a lot of invalid modifications"; what are the other issues,
> > > specifically?
> > Only final fields. No other issues. But 3-4 in 3 classes - it is alot for
me :)
> >
> > On 10/24/06, Nathan Beyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I removed the final modifiers; this only affected PngDecoder,
> > > GifDecoder and JpegDecoder. I missed the comments in the fields of
> > > JpegDecoder, that was my mistake.
> > >
> > > There were only 3-4 other fields that were finalized. Your email
> > > mentioned "a lot of invalid modifications"; what are the other issues,
> > > specifically?
> > >
> > > -Nathan
> > >
> > > On 10/24/06, Nathan Beyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Where are the tests for these decoders? How did you determine that
> > > > they no longer worked?
> > > >
> > > > I'll remove the final modifiers.
> > > >
> > > > -Nathan
> > > >
> > > > On 10/24/06, Oleg Khaschansky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > Rev. 465514 introduced a lot of invalid modifications to the
> > > > > GifDecoder, PngDecoder and JpegDecoder. There were a number of fields
> > > > > modified or initialized from the native code only, but they were
> > > > > redeclared as final, so the decoders doesn't work properly any more.
> > > > >
> > > > > This revision has the following comment:
> > > > >
> > > > > Cleanup code
> > > > > * Add if/else braces
> > > > > * Add missing annotations
> > > > > * Add type variables
> > > > > * Use foreach loops
> > > > > * etc
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd suggest to roll back this revision and redo the cleanup in the
> > > > > more accurate way.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Oleg
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
