Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] [9] RFR: JDK-8138749, , Revisited: PrinterJob.printDialog() does not support multi-mon, always displayed on primary

2016-02-17 Thread prasanta sadhukhan
Hi Phil, On 2/18/2016 5:53 AM, Philip Race wrote: I don't think we should be adjusting the width of the dialog so that part of the change should be removed which will simplify the logic. Of course anyone calling the ServiceUI public API does not have any insight into the size of the dialog sin

Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] [9] RFR: JDK-8138749, , Revisited: PrinterJob.printDialog() does not support multi-mon, always displayed on primary

2016-02-17 Thread Philip Race
I don't think we should be adjusting the width of the dialog so that part of the change should be removed which will simplify the logic. Of course anyone calling the ServiceUI public API does not have any insight into the size of the dialog since it is not explicitly returned so they could inad

Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] JDK 9 RFR of JDK-8148914: BitDepth.java test fails

2016-02-17 Thread Phil Race
+1 -phil. On 02/17/2016 06:36 AM, Brian Burkhalter wrote: On Feb 16, 2016, at 6:42 PM, Joseph D. Darcy > wrote: 1. Line 121: Would prefer “tiff” to “tif” as the former is the format acronym and consistent with the other array elements. I'm happy to change "tif

[OpenJDK 2D-Dev] Fix integer overflow warnings in icu layout code

2016-02-17 Thread Omair Majid
* Omair Majid [2016-01-27 15:35]: > Hi, > > * Phil Race [2016-01-21 17:55]: > > On 01/21/2016 01:50 PM, Omair Majid wrote: > > >That said, do you think some sort of add-and-check-for-overflow test > > >would be suitable here? I can take a shot at implementing it, if you > > >like. > > > > Sure

Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] JDK 9 RFR of JDK-8148914: BitDepth.java test fails

2016-02-17 Thread Brian Burkhalter
On Feb 16, 2016, at 6:42 PM, Joseph D. Darcy wrote: >> 1. Line 121: Would prefer “tiff” to “tif” as the former is the format >> acronym and consistent with the other array elements. > > I'm happy to change "tif" to "tiff" here; I verified the test passes under an > open-only build as a full O

Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] [9] Review request for 8073400: Some Monospaced logical fonts have a different width

2016-02-17 Thread dmitry markov
Hello Phil, Thank you for the review. According to unicode table the characters u201c and u201d are in General Punctuation block, see http://unicode-table.com/en/blocks/general-punctuation/ Many characters from this block are not supported by Courier New. So I do not think we need to remove t