PlatformImpl isn't API. It's an internal method in a non-public,
non-documented class. I don't want to pick a less desirable name just
because there is an internal method with the same name that works
differently in 9.
-- Kevin
Ali Ebrahimi wrote:
Hi,
I know concerns here, but I think PlatformImpl.startup() and
Platform.startup() should have same behavior from caller's POW.
So I think if we can not have default behavior(duplicate calls) for
public API so please change method name.
My suggestions: Platform.safeStartup() or Platform.startPlatform
or Platform.start
On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 11:35 PM, Jonathan Giles
<jonathan.gi...@oracle.com <mailto:jonathan.gi...@oracle.com>> wrote:
I don't believe there is any inconsistency here. We are preserving
the existing semantics in PlatformImpl.startup to not prevent
duplicate calls by default, whilst we are reversing the semantics
for the public API in Platform, where we do prevent duplicate
calls. The end result is that we have one public API
(Platform.startup) with one set of semantics (prevent duplicate
values).
-- Jonathan
On 21/11/15 11:57 PM, Ali Ebrahimi wrote:
Hi,
I think there is an inconsistency between :
PlatformImpl.java
public static void startup(final Runnable r) {
+ startup(r, false); //************* here default value false
+ }
and
Platform.java
+ public static void startup(Runnable runnable) {
+ PlatformImpl.startup(runnable, true); //******** here default
value true
+ }
On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 3:28 AM, Kevin Rushforth
<kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com <mailto:kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com>>
wrote:
Jonathan and all,
Please review the following new API proposal to add the
ability to explicitly start the FX runtime.
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8090585
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8090585/webrev.00/
<http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Ekcr/8090585/webrev.00/>
-- Kevin
--
Best Regards,
Ali Ebrahimi
--
Best Regards,
Ali Ebrahimi
