On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 14:39:14 GMT, Frederic Thevenet
<github.com+7450507+ftheve...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> modules/javafx.graphics/src/main/java/javafx/scene/Scene.java line 1316:
>>
>>> 1315: }
>>> 1316: }
>>> 1317: } else {
>>
>> I would extract this code into its own method similar to `doSnapshotTile`:
>>
>> `assemble(scene, xMin, yMin, width, height, root, transform, depthBuffer,
>> fill, camera, wimg, maxTextureSize);`
>>
>> (`assemble` is a bad name, I didn't think about a better one).
>>
>> The method can return he resulting `WritableImage`, but it is not needed
>> since it is manipulated via "side-effects". I would, however, bring it line
>> with the `else` clause - either both use `wimg = methodName(..., wimg,
>> ...);` or just `methodName(..., wimg, ...);`. This is fine since the input
>> `WritableImage` is never `null`. From a readability point of view, using
>> return values seems better.
>
> I'm not 100% convinced this would really add much to the readability of the
> code; I extracted the code from `doSnapshotTile` in its own method because it
> is called twice (on both sides of the `if (height > maxTextureSize || width >
> maxTextureSize)` condition, actually), but this isn't the case here.
> I've got no strong feeling against it either, so I don't know; anybody else
> care to comment?
I also don't have a strong opinion, so I'm OK with you leaving it as-is.
-------------
PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jfx/pull/68
