Hello, Brian
On 11/15/2016 7:25 PM, Brian Burkhalter wrote:
Hello Alexander,
On Nov 15, 2016, at 4:11 AM, Alexander Stepanov
<alexander.v.stepa...@oracle.com
<mailto:alexander.v.stepa...@oracle.com>> wrote:
Thank you for the comments (hopefully I wasn't too confident pickin
est. The zero denominator check if implemented would also require an API
update.
Thanks,
Brian
On Nov 14, 2016, at 7:02 AM, Alexander Stepanov
<alexander.v.stepa...@oracle.com> wrote:
P.S. please let me know if for some purposes the fractions should be stored in
the initial (non-reduced) sta
in getValueAsString()
2. check the sign for the unsigned fractions
3. forbid null denominators (?)
On 11/14/2016 5:30 PM, Alexander Stepanov wrote:
Hello,
Could you please review the following fix
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avstepan/8152293/webrev.00/
for
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8152293
Hello,
Could you please review the following fix
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avstepan/8152293/webrev.00/
for
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8152293 ?
Thanks,
Alexander
Thanks!
On 4/8/2016 12:08 PM, Yuri Nesterenko wrote:
+1
-yan
On 04/01/2016 08:31 PM, Alexander Stepanov wrote:
Please see the updated webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avstepan/8152183/webrev.01/
One more test (for multi-page tiffs) was added; for now to be ignored
because of JDK-8148454
P.S.: and even if scratch is accidentally non-writable (which is
definitely an exceptional situation), then the 'writeImage()' method
will throw a proper Exception, so it seems there is no need in
additional checks here.
Thanks,
Alexander
On 4/6/2016 12:21 PM, Alexander Stepanov wrote
actually OK then I have no other issues.
-phil.
On 04/01/2016 10:31 AM, Alexander Stepanov wrote:
Please see the updated webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avstepan/8152183/webrev.01/
One more test (for multi-page tiffs) was added; for now to be ignored
because of JDK-8148454
Thanks,
Alexande
Thanks!
On 3/31/2016 8:10 PM, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
Looks good.
--Semyon
On 3/31/2016 6:52 PM, Alexander Stepanov wrote:
Please see
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avstepan/8149028/webrev.02/
(one more test covering TIFFImageReadParam was added).
Thanks,
Alexander
On 3/29/2016 8:21 PM
Please see
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avstepan/8149028/webrev.02/
(one more test covering TIFFImageReadParam was added).
Thanks,
Alexander
On 3/29/2016 8:21 PM, Alexander Stepanov wrote:
Please see the updated webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avstepan/8149028/webrev.01/
(one more test
Please see the updated webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avstepan/8149028/webrev.01/
(one more test was added).
Thanks,
Alexander
On 3/25/2016 6:46 PM, Alexander Stepanov wrote:
Hello,
Could you please review the following fix
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avstepan/8149028/webrev.00
Sorry, just a reminder.
Thanks,
Alexander
On 3/23/2016 5:09 PM, Alexander Stepanov wrote:
Hello,
Could you please review the following fix
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avstepan/8152183/webrev.00/
for
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8152183
Just a single test added.
Thanks,
Alexander
Thanks!
On 3/25/2016 3:25 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
+1
On 24.03.16 20:18, Alexander Stepanov wrote:
Hello Sergey,
Sorry, could you please look at the new test once more?
the following lines
124 // some type checks: avoid IO exceptions
125
126 if ((format.equals("
}
to make possible to run the test with OpenJDK (didn't check that initially).
Thanks,
Alexander
On 3/24/2016 2:02 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
Looks fine to me.
On 23.03.16 12:46, Alexander Stepanov wrote:
Hello, Sergey,
> Should we also test bmp and jpg?
covered as well
> all of
Thanks!
On 3/24/2016 2:02 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
Looks fine to me.
On 23.03.16 12:46, Alexander Stepanov wrote:
Hello, Sergey,
> Should we also test bmp and jpg?
covered as well
> all of them have a white color and same size
for the 2nd version the images used for the 1st a
Hello,
Could you please review the following fix
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avstepan/8152183/webrev.00/
for
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8152183
Just a single test added.
Thanks,
Alexander
19:31, Alexander Stepanov wrote:
Sorry, just a reminder.
Can you provide an information what was changed in this version?
Thanks,
Alexander
On 3/15/2016 7:12 PM, Alexander Stepanov wrote:
Please see the updated fix:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avstepan/8149558/webrev.01/
Thanks,
Alexander
Sorry, just a reminder.
Thanks,
Alexander
On 3/15/2016 7:12 PM, Alexander Stepanov wrote:
Please see the updated fix:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avstepan/8149558/webrev.01/
Thanks,
Alexander
On 2/26/2016 6:54 PM, Alexander Stepanov wrote:
> Should we also test bmp and jpg?
couldn't
Please see the updated fix:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avstepan/8149558/webrev.01/
Thanks,
Alexander
On 2/26/2016 6:54 PM, Alexander Stepanov wrote:
> Should we also test bmp and jpg?
couldn't use writer for these formats "as is" (simply
"writer.write(img)") - t
ded to JDK-8150154?
On 25.02.16 18:17, Alexander Stepanov wrote:
Sorry, just a reminder.
Thanks,
Alexander
On 2/12/2016 1:35 PM, Alexander Stepanov wrote:
Hello,
Could you please review the following fix
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avstepan/8149558/webrev.00/
for
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/
Sorry, just a reminder.
Thanks,
Alexander
On 2/12/2016 1:35 PM, Alexander Stepanov wrote:
Hello,
Could you please review the following fix
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avstepan/8149558/webrev.00/
for
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8149558
Just a single regression test added (still
Hello,
Could you please review the following fix
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avstepan/8149558/webrev.00/
for
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8149558
Just a single regression test added (still failing), plus minor
correction for other test.
Thanks,
Alexander
Hello, Brian,
Thanks!
Regards,
Alexander
On 2/4/2016 1:46 AM, Brian Burkhalter wrote:
Hello, Alexander,
Looks reasonable to me!
Regards,
Brian
On Feb 3, 2016, at 5:46 AM, Alexander Stepanov
<alexander.v.stepa...@oracle.com> wrote:
Hello,
Could you please review the following fi
Thanks!
On 2/4/2016 2:14 PM, Yuri Nesterenko wrote:
OK with me!
-yan
On 02/03/2016 04:46 PM, Alexander Stepanov wrote:
Hello,
Could you please review the following fix
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avstepan/8145780/webrev.00/
for
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8145780
Just a single
Hello Sergey, Semyon,
Thanks!
Regards,
Alexander
On 1/22/2016 9:54 AM, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
Looks good to me.
--Semyon
On 1/19/2016 7:17 PM, Alexander Stepanov wrote:
Hello Sergey,
please find the updated webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avstepan/8146881/webrev.01/index.html
Regards
Hello Sergey,
please find the updated webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avstepan/8146881/webrev.01/index.html
Regards,
Alexander
On 1/18/2016 5:12 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
On 15/01/16 15:27, Alexander Stepanov wrote:
Hello Sergey,
> Why this test do not cover the gif/bmp as well?
I
P.S. 'biGrayTypes' in BitDepth.java was commented as the color checks
used in the test are improper in case of graycsale images.
On 1/19/2016 7:17 PM, Alexander Stepanov wrote:
Hello Sergey,
please find the updated webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avstepan/8146881/webrev.01/index.html
Thanks!
On 1/18/2016 10:46 AM, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
Looks good.
--Semyon
On 1/11/2016 2:49 PM, Alexander Stepanov wrote:
Hello Semyon,
Thank you, that eliminates the question with the internal package.
Probably Brian meant the same (but I just didn't understand this at
first).
Please
ava the @summary should be updated. Why this test do not
cover the gif/bmp as well?
It is unclear why biRGBATypes are unused in the test.
On 12/01/16 17:40, Alexander Stepanov wrote:
Please ignore mistaken changes in ImageWriterCompressionTest
(re-uploading the webrev...)
Thanks,
Alexander
On 1
Bylokhov wrote:
On 12/01/16 19:53, Alexander Stepanov wrote:
So it seems the test logic could be used "as is" for the tiff format
only (as intended), and I'd like to keep it without sizable changes.
yes but in past we had a situations when such assumption was broken in
some new writers/re
Thanks!
On 1/14/2016 2:41 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
On 14/01/16 13:41, Alexander Stepanov wrote:
Hello Sergey,
In such a case I prefer to have a separate need-test bug to cover all
the formats, please see
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8147082
ok, thanks. looks fine.
This test
Hello,
Some imageio plugins reg. tests should probably be updated to reflect
the fact that TIFF format is supported now.
Could you please let me know if the following changes are appropriate?
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avstepan/8146881/webrev.00/index.html
(bug:
t; is unnecessary in the
test, i guess it is applicable to all image types which
canWriteSequence=true?
On 11/01/16 14:49, Alexander Stepanov wrote:
Hello Semyon,
Thank you, that eliminates the question with the internal package.
Probably Brian meant the same (but I just didn't understand t
In such a case (canWriteSequence() && canWriteRasters()), I guess, we
return to the sole TIFF :)
On 1/12/2016 6:14 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
On 12/01/16 18:08, Alexander Stepanov wrote:
> applicable to all image types which canWriteSequence=true?
I'm not sure. E.g
could be used "as is" for the tiff format
only (as intended), and I'd like to keep it without sizable changes.
Regards,
Alexander
On 1/12/2016 6:18 PM, Alexander Stepanov wrote:
In such a case (canWriteSequence() && canWriteRasters()), I guess, we
return to the sole TIFF :)
On 1/1
://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avstepan/8138838/jdk.patch
On 05.10.15 14:15, Alexander Stepanov wrote:
Sorry; wrong subject...
On 10/5/2015 2:12 PM, Alexander Stepanov wrote:
Hello,
Could you please review the fix for
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8138838
Patch + webrev zipped + specdiff report:
http
, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
Hello Alexander,
Why don't use the reader method analogue for writer? Then the test
could use the public API which is preferable.
Just a cosmetic note. Lines should be wrapped at 80 position.
--Semyon
On 12/29/2015 3:44 PM, Alexander Stepanov wrote:
Hello Brian,
Thank
ian Burkhalter wrote:
Hello Alexander,
On Dec 29, 2015, at 4:44 AM, Alexander Stepanov
<alexander.v.stepa...@oracle.com
<mailto:alexander.v.stepa...@oracle.com>> wrote:
Thank you for the notes, please see the updated webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~yan/8145776/webrev.01/
bly will request some other possible form of review,
like package splitting.
[1] http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avstepan/8138838/jdk.patch
On 05.10.15 14:15, Alexander Stepanov wrote:
Sorry; wrong subject...
On 10/5/2015 2:12 PM, Alexander Stepanov wrote:
Hello,
Could you please review the fix for
ht
Adding the correct mailing list (sorry).
On 03.06.2015 15:04, Alexander Scherbatiy wrote:
The fix looks good to me.
Thanks,
Alexandr.
On 5/29/2015 2:58 PM, alexander stepanov wrote:
Hello,
Could you please review fix
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avstepan/8081313/webrev.00/
for
https
Sorry; was sent to wrong mailing list initially.
On 29.05.2015 14:58, alexander stepanov wrote:
Hello,
Could you please review fix
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avstepan/8081313/webrev.00/
for
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8081313
Just a minor fix of docs; other code is not affected
Thanks!
On 25.03.2015 21:27, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
Hi, Alexander.
The fix looks good.
25.03.15 13:31, alexander stepanov wrote:
Hello,
Could you please review the fix for
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8075934
Webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avstepan/8075934/webrev.01/
Just
Hello,
Could you please review the fix for
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8075934
Webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avstepan/8075934/webrev.01/
Just a small HTML markup fix.
Thanks,
Alexander
should not touching the copyright. It adds
clutter too.
-phil.
On 7/9/2014 3:59 AM, alexander stepanov wrote:
Sorry for delay; please see the regenerated webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avstepan/8037511/webrev.00/
Regards,
Alexander
On 01.07.2014 19:07, alexander stepanov wrote:
Hello
Sorry for delay; please see the regenerated webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avstepan/8037511/webrev.00/
Regards,
Alexander
On 01.07.2014 19:07, alexander stepanov wrote:
Hello Phil,
ok, thanks. will do that in the next few days...
Regards,
Alexander
On 30.06.2014 21:33, Phil Race wrote
Hello Phil,
ok, thanks. will do that in the next few days...
Regards,
Alexander
On 30.06.2014 21:33, Phil Race wrote:
Regenerate it against the jdk 9 client repo and I'll take a look.
-phil.
On 6/23/2014 5:16 AM, alexander stepanov wrote:
Could somebody please review this old fix?
Thanks
Could somebody please review this old fix?
Thanks,
Alexander
On 14.04.2014 14:37, alexander stepanov wrote:
Sorry, updated once more (included javax/imageio):
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~yan/8037511/webrev.02/
On 03.04.2014 12:49, alexander stepanov wrote:
Please see the updated webrev
On 12.05.2014 13:49, alexander stepanov wrote:
Sorry, just a reminder.
Regards,
Alexander
On 14.04.2014 14:37, alexander stepanov wrote:
Sorry, updated once more (included javax/imageio):
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~yan/8037511/webrev.02/
On 03.04.2014 12:49, alexander stepanov wrote
Sorry, updated once more (included javax/imageio):
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~yan/8037511/webrev.02/
On 03.04.2014 12:49, alexander stepanov wrote:
Please see the updated webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~yan/8037511/webrev.01/
Files from javax/print were updated too.
Thanks,
Alexander
Hello,
Could you please review the fix for the following bug:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8037511
Webrev corresponding:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~yan/8037511/webrev.00/
Just a minor cleanup of javadoc to avoid tidy warnings; no other code
affected.
Thanks.
Regards,
Alexander
.
-phil.
On 9/13/2013 5:58 AM, Andrew Brygin wrote:
Hi Alexander,
the test looks fine to me.
Thanks,
Andrew
On 9/13/2013 1:20 PM, alexander stepanov wrote:
Hello,
could you please review the fix for the following [TEST] bug:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8024767
(sorry, the bug info
Please see the updated webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bae/8024767/webrev.01/
Regards,
Alexander
On 29.10.2013 16:48, alexander stepanov wrote:
Hello Phil,
OK, thanks, I'll remove the redundant options.
Regards,
Alexander
On 29.10.2013 2:03, Phil Race wrote:
Sorry for the delay
Hello,
could you please review the fix for the following [TEST] bug:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8024767
(sorry, the bug info isn't available at bugs.sun.com yet).
The webrev corresponding:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bae/8024767/webrev.00/
Just a new test added; no other code
52 matches
Mail list logo
