[9] Review request: 8178989: Missing copyright headers for some files

Hi Chien, Please review this simple fix to add missing copyright headers to 7 files: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8178989 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8178989/webrev.00/ Thanks. -- Kevin

Re: [9] Review request: 8178015: Clarify requirement for app modules to export/open packages to javafx modules

Alan Bateman wrote: On 20/04/2017 19:06, Kevin Rushforth wrote: Here is an updated webrev with a few suggested wording changes (e.g., removed the reference to ModuleDescriptor, changed "accessible by" back to "accessible to"). http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8178015/webrev.02/

Re: [9] Review request: 8178015: Clarify requirement for app modules to export/open packages to javafx modules

On 20/04/2017 19:06, Kevin Rushforth wrote: Here is an updated webrev with a few suggested wording changes (e.g., removed the reference to ModuleDescriptor, changed "accessible by" back to "accessible to"). http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8178015/webrev.02/ Additionally, I removed the

[10] Code Review Request For 8133337: [Linux] Pasting HTML from Firefox does not work

Hi Kevin, Please review the proposed fix. JBS: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-817 Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~asrivastava/dipak/817/webrev.00/ Root cause and solution updated in JBS. Thanks, Dipak

Re: [9] Review request: 8178015: Clarify requirement for app modules to export/open packages to javafx modules

+1 Mandy > On Apr 20, 2017, at 11:06 AM, Kevin Rushforth > wrote: > > Here is an updated webrev with a few suggested wording changes (e.g., removed > the reference to ModuleDescriptor, changed "accessible by" back to > "accessible to"). > >

Re: [9] Review request: 8178015: Clarify requirement for app modules to export/open packages to javafx modules

Here is an updated webrev with a few suggested wording changes (e.g., removed the reference to ModuleDescriptor, changed "accessible by" back to "accessible to"). http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8178015/webrev.02/ Additionally, I removed the example in the FXML annotation showing the use of

[10] Code Review Request For 8178837: Potential performance drawback due to type mismatch

Hi Kevin, Please review the proposed fix. JIRA: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8178837 Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ckyang/JDK-8178837/webrev.00/ Thanks, - Chien

[9] Review request: 8091730: Enable -Xdoclint:all to treat all javadoc warnings as errors

Please review the following to enable building the FX docs with "javadoc -Xdoclint:all". https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8091730 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8091730/webrev.00/ This will allow to catch doc warnings early before delivering them to the JDK 9 build, and

[9] Code Review Request For 8178804: Excessive memory consumption in TriangleMesh/MeshView

Hi Kevin, Please review the proposed fix. JIRA: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8178804 Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ckyang/JDK-8178804/webrev.00/ Thanks, - Chien

Re: Review: Remove Lens code (finally)

As a note, once the review is completed this will only go into OpenJFX 10. It will not be backported to 9 or 8. -- Kevin Chris Newland wrote: Thanks for the heads-up David. I've checked my chriswhocodes.com web server logs and around 90 unique IPs per week are still downloading the ARM

Re: Review: Remove Lens code (finally)

Thanks for the heads-up David. I've checked my chriswhocodes.com web server logs and around 90 unique IPs per week are still downloading the ARM OpenJFX overlay builds so before this patch is merged I'll take a snapshot of the last working ARM build and keep that available. Kind regards, Chris

[9] Review request: 8178329: Update minimum boot JDK to jdk-9+165

Please review the following to bump the minimum build number of the boot JDK used to build FX 9 to 165 [1]. https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8178329 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8178329/webrev.00/ I'll wait until tomorrow afternoon to push this, if the review is done

[10] Review request: 8178521 Severe performance drop for path rendering

Review history already in JBS: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8178521 final webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~flar/JDK-8178521/webrev.02/ This should be considered for a backport to 9 as well... ...jim

Review: Remove Lens code (finally)

Here is the change to remove the Lens code. caviots: There were some minor gradle fixes required to cross build. I removed all of the arm*gradle files except for armv6hf. Arm is not a supported platform anymore and by reducing to the most likely to be used (because of the Pi), I can

Re: [9] Review request: 8178015: Clarify requirement for app modules to export/open packages to javafx modules

Mandy Chung wrote: On Apr 18, 2017, at 12:48 PM, Kevin Rushforth wrote: Alan Bateman wrote: On 18/04/2017 19:19, Kevin Rushforth wrote: Good suggestion. Here is an updated webrev with Mandy's suggestion and yours:

Re: [9] Review request: 8178015: Clarify requirement for app modules to export/open packages to javafx modules

> On Apr 18, 2017, at 12:48 PM, Kevin Rushforth > wrote: > > > > Alan Bateman wrote: >> >> >> On 18/04/2017 19:19, Kevin Rushforth wrote: >>> Good suggestion. Here is an updated webrev with Mandy's suggestion and >>> yours: >>> >>>

Re: [9] Review request: 8178015: Clarify requirement for app modules to export/open packages to javafx modules

Alan Bateman wrote: On 18/04/2017 19:19, Kevin Rushforth wrote: Good suggestion. Here is an updated webrev with Mandy's suggestion and yours: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8178015/webrev.01/ -- Kevin This looks mostly okay. I guess for FXML then I assume that the annotated member

Re: [9] Review request: 8178015: Clarify requirement for app modules to export/open packages to javafx modules

On 18/04/2017 19:19, Kevin Rushforth wrote: Good suggestion. Here is an updated webrev with Mandy's suggestion and yours: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8178015/webrev.01/ -- Kevin This looks mostly okay. I guess for FXML then I assume that the annotated member could be public, in which

Re: [9] Review request: 8178015: Clarify requirement for app modules to export/open packages to javafx modules

Good suggestion. Here is an updated webrev with Mandy's suggestion and yours: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8178015/webrev.01/ -- Kevin Alan Bateman wrote: On 18/04/2017 01:00, Kevin Rushforth wrote: Please review the following javadoc change: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK

Re: [9] Review request: 8178015: Clarify requirement for app modules to export/open packages to javafx modules

On 18/04/2017 01:00, Kevin Rushforth wrote: Please review the following javadoc change: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8178015 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8178015/webrev.00/ This restores the links to the Module class that had to be removed during the transition period

Re: [9] Review request: 8178015: Clarify requirement for app modules to export/open packages to javafx modules

> On Apr 17, 2017, at 5:00 PM, Kevin Rushforth <kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com> > wrote: > > Please review the following javadoc change: > > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8178015 > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8178015/webrev.00/ > + * Applications i

[9] Review request: 8178015: Clarify requirement for app modules to export/open packages to javafx modules

Please review the following javadoc change: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8178015 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8178015/webrev.00/ This restores the links to the Module class that had to be removed during the transition period for the move of Module and Layer from

Re: [8u121] Review request for JDK-8177077: Constructing multiple Image objects using animated GIFs concurrently can fail with AIOOBE

isn't open yet, but we hope will be soon), and 8u for a future update release of JDK 9.x and 8uNN. -- Kevin Markus KARG wrote: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8177077 Please review the patch attached to JDK-8177077 I simply wrapped invocations to Timeline.play

[8u121] Review request for JDK-8177077: Constructing multiple Image objects using animated GIFs concurrently can fail with AIOOBE

https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8177077 Please review the patch attached to JDK-8177077 I simply wrapped invocations to Timeline.play() and Timeline.stop() by Platform.runLater, so it should be thread safe now.

[10] Review request for 8176729: com.sun.webkit.dom.NodeImpl#SelfDisposer is not called

    Hi Kevin, Arun, Guru Please review the fix for ­ JDK-8176729. JIRA: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8176729   Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mbilla/8176729/webrev.00/   Thanks, Murali

Subject: [8u121] Review request for JDK-8178837: Potential performance drawback due to type mismatch

https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8178837 There is a potential performance drawback due to a type mismatch in TriangleMesh.java:548 as `points.size()` returns `int` so storing as `double` makes not much sense. I provided a patch which simply replaces double by int.

Re: [10] Review request: 8177985 Use Marlin renderer as the default FX rasterizer

Looks good to me, too. -- Kevin Laurent Bourgès wrote: Jim, It looks good to me (even I am not an official reviewer) and the Marlin Double-precision will be the default rasterizer. Bye, Laurent Le 14 avr. 2017 22:32, "Jim Graham" a écrit : JBS:

Re: [10] Review request: 8177985 Use Marlin renderer as the default FX rasterizer

Yes... ...jim On 4/14/17 1:45 PM, Michael Paus wrote: Will marlindouble remain the default when you say nothing or when you specify just marlin? Am 14.04.17 um 22:31 schrieb Jim Graham: JBS: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8177985 webrev:

Re: [10] Review request: 8177985 Use Marlin renderer as the default FX rasterizer

Jim, It looks good to me (even I am not an official reviewer) and the Marlin Double-precision will be the default rasterizer. Bye, Laurent Le 14 avr. 2017 22:32, "Jim Graham" a écrit : > JBS: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8177985 > webrev:

Re: [10] Review request: 8177985 Use Marlin renderer as the default FX rasterizer

Will marlindouble remain the default when you say nothing or when you specify just marlin? Am 14.04.17 um 22:31 schrieb Jim Graham: JBS: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8177985 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~flar/JDK-8177985/webrev.00/ The only way to get one of the old Pisces

Re: [10] Review request: 8177985 Use Marlin renderer as the default FX rasterizer

I was going to tag Kevin and Laurent on this, but forgot to amend the address lines before I hit send... ...jim On 4/14/17 1:31 PM, Jim Graham wrote: JBS: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8177985 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~flar/JDK-8177985/webrev.00/

[10] Review request: 8177985 Use Marlin renderer as the default FX rasterizer

JBS: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8177985 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~flar/JDK-8177985/webrev.00/ The only way to get one of the old Pisces rasterizers now is to manually disable Marlin (or use the new order option as follows). This fix also introduces a similar pattern

[10] Review request: JDK-8175574: Singleton App

Chris, Please review the changes about single instance. JIRA: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8175574 Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vdrozdov/JDK-8175574/webrev.04/ --Victor

[10] Review request: 8176825 Unwanted comment in jdk.packager.services/src/main/java/module-info.java

Victor, Please review this minor change to remove and unwanted comment. JIRA: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8176825 Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~cbensen/JDK-8176825/webrev.00/ Chris

[9] Review request: 8178413 Mark All Exported Java Packager APIs as Deprecated

Kevin, Victor, and Mandy, Please review this change to deprecate all the existing non documented Java Packager API for JDK 9 and provide a new API for JDK 10. JIRA: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8178413 Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~cbensen/JDK-8178413/webrev.02/ Chris

Review Request: 8178417 : TextArea/TextField: Undo operation reverts the caret position.

Hi Jonathan, Ajit, Please review a small fix: Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8178417 Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~arapte/fx/8178417/webrev.00/ Regards, Ambarish

Review Request: 8090192 : [TextArea] Previous char wrong at line start

Hi Jonathan, Ajit, Please review this bug fix: Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8090192 Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~arapte/fx/8090192/webrev.00/ Regards, Ambarish

Review Request: JDK-8175963: ChoiceBox using events from ComboBox

Hi Jonathan, Ajit, Please review this fix, Bug : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8175963 Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~arapte/fx/8175963/webrev.03/ Issue: EventType from class ComboBoxBase were used with ChoiceBox class

Review request: JDK-8145887: ListView selectionModel selectedIndices ListIterator nextIndex broken

Hi Jonathan, Ajit Please review this fix: Webrev : http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~arapte/fx/8145887/webrev.00/ Bug : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8145887 Issue: The private class SelectionListIterator implements the interface

Review Request 8088681:Underscore not visible in HTML combo box options inside webview

Hi Kevin, Arun, Please review the fix for : JBS: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8088681 Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~asrivastava/dipak/8088681/webrev.00/ I have tested the fix on Win64 and Linux 64. I have run Junit test cases and DRT. Many thanks, Dipak

[9] Review request: 8178132: Add @moduleGraph javadoc tag to javadoc for JavaFX modules

Mandy and Dave, Please review the following fix to add '@moduleGraph' tags to the javafx.* and jdk.packager* modules: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8178132 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8178132/webrev.00/ I also ignore the tag when building the FX javadocs. -- Kevin

[9] Review request: 8178282: Add '@since 9' javadoc tags to JavaFX module descriptions

Jonathan & Chris, Please review the following to add the missing @since tags, and simple javadoc description for jdk.packager.* https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8178282 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8178282/webrev.00/ Thanks. -- Kevin

[9] Review request: 8178281: Remove @link reference to Module class until boot JDK is updated

Phil, Please review the following fix (which is a follow-on to JDK-8177751). https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8178281 The patch is in the JBS; it changes "{@link Module#addOpens}" to {@code Module.addOpens} in one more place. -- Kevin

[10] Review request : JDK-8153509 : MenuButton label padding is not ignored for ignored labels

Hi Jonathan, Request you to review following fix : Bug : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8153509 Fix : http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aghaisas/fx/8153509/webrev.1/ Regards, Ajit

Re: [9] Review request: 8173080: Add licenses for non-distributed third-party source code in repo

> On Apr 5, 2017, at 3:51 PM, Kevin Rushforth <kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com> > wrote: > > Dave, > > Please review the following fix to add missing .md license files for > non-distributed third-party source code in our repo: > > https://bugs.openjdk.j

[9] Review request: 8173080: Add licenses for non-distributed third-party source code in repo

Dave, Please review the following fix to add missing .md license files for non-distributed third-party source code in our repo: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8173080 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8173080/webrev.00/ -- Kevin

[9] Review request: 8169555: Need unit tests for JDK-8169289

Dave and Dave, Please review: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8169555 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8169555/webrev.00/ This adds three new unit tests for verifying that we can launch modular FX applications. -- Kevin

Re: [10] Review request for 8176844: Menus not always selected properly with GTK 3

On 04/05/2017 11:23 AM, David Hill wrote: On 4/5/17, 12:52 PM, Semyon Sadetsky wrote: Okay. Thank you to you all! The root cause why we need to add sync is a new way to grab/ungrab focus used in the GTK3 glass implementation. The GTK2 way to grab/ungrab is still applicable in GTK3 though

Re: [10] Review request for 8176844: Menus not always selected properly with GTK 3

Sadetsky wrote: Hello Kevin & David, Please review the fix for jfx9: bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8176844 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ssadetsky/8176844/ --Semyon Semyon, I have been sitting here for a while thinking about adding gdk_display_sync(gdk_display_get_

Re: [10] Review request for 8176844: Menus not always selected properly with GTK 3

to measure the effect of such change, remote display to your desktop from a machine in a geographically distant site. It is the latency that kills performance, not the bandwidth. -phil. On 4/4/17, 3:43 PM, David Hill wrote: On 4/4/17, 1:27 PM, Semyon Sadetsky wrote: Hello Kevin & David, Please rev

Re: [10] Review request for 8176844: Menus not always selected properly with GTK 3

7, 3:43 PM, David Hill wrote: On 4/4/17, 1:27 PM, Semyon Sadetsky wrote: Hello Kevin & David, Please review the fix for jfx9: bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8176844 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ssadetsky/8176844/ --Semyon Semyon, I have been sitting here for a while

Re: [10] Review request for 8176844: Menus not always selected properly with GTK 3

to measure the effect of such change, remote display to your desktop from a machine in a geographically distant site. It is the latency that kills performance, not the bandwidth. -phil. On 4/4/17, 3:43 PM, David Hill wrote: On 4/4/17, 1:27 PM, Semyon Sadetsky wrote: Hello Kevin & David, Please

Review: Provide generic add-exports mechanism

Kevin, Jonathan, https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8178075 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ddhill/8178075 -- David Hill Java Embedded Development "A man's feet should be planted in his country, but his eyes should survey the world." -- George Santayana

Re: [10] Review request for 8176844: Menus not always selected properly with GTK 3

David, Please review the fix for jfx9: bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8176844 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ssadetsky/8176844/ --Semyon Semyon, I have been sitting here for a while thinking about adding gdk_display_sync(gdk_display_get_default()); I can see why this migh

Re: [10] Review request for 8176844: Menus not always selected properly with GTK 3

On 4/4/17, 1:27 PM, Semyon Sadetsky wrote: Hello Kevin & David, Please review the fix for jfx9: bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8176844 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ssadetsky/8176844/ --Semyon Semyon, I have been sitting here for a while thinking about ad

Re: [10] Review request for 8176844: Menus not always selected properly with GTK 3

Sorry. The fix is for JFX *10*. On 04/04/2017 10:27 AM, Semyon Sadetsky wrote: Hello Kevin & David, Please review the fix for jfx9: bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8176844 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ssadetsky/8176844/ --Semyon

[10] Review request for 8176844: Menus not always selected properly with GTK 3

Hello Kevin & David, Please review the fix for jfx9: bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8176844 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ssadetsky/8176844/ --Semyon

Re: review: Generate bss for all css files, remove TODO

ate JBS issue, if we decide there is good reason to stop delivering the .css files. I don't think we have a compelling reason to exclude them. -- Kevin Dave On 3/30/17 1:50 PM, David Hill wrote: Jonathan, please review this change automating the CSS to BSS conversion in our build The li

Re: review: Generate bss for all css files, remove TODO

other part of the question was if we even should ship the .css files a all and css2bin. To shorten a long conversation, continuing to do so allows widget developers access to them, access we have no other standard way of providing. Dave On 3/30/17 1:50 PM, David Hill wrote: Jonathan, ple

Re: review: Generate bss for all css files, remove TODO

, please review this change automating the CSS to BSS conversion in our build The list of 6 newly converted files as well as the existing ones are in the JBS. So 9 existing plus 6 new = 15. https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8174944 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ddhill/8174944/

review: Generate bss for all css files, remove TODO

Jonathan, please review this change automating the CSS to BSS conversion in our build The list of 6 newly converted files as well as the existing ones are in the JBS. So 9 existing plus 6 new = 15. https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8174944 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ddhill

[10] Review request : JDK-8089875 : MenuBarSkin does not update if a menu changes its visibility.

Hi Jonathan, Request you to review following fix : Menus that were added after MenuBarSkin construction never used to trigger UI rebuilding if their visible property changed. Bug : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8089875 Fix : http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aghaisas/fx

[10] Review request: JDK-8089193 : Width of menu is affected by mnemonic-identifier

Hi Jonathan,     Request you to review below fix -     Bug : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8089193     Fix : http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aghaisas/fx/8089193/webrev.0/ Regards, Ajit

[9] Review request: 8177451 javapackager -help prints help message of java -help

Kevin, Please review this fix to the javapackager.exe launcher. My last change, I thought I had tested it thoroughly but I made a mistake where I put one of the quotes but I also noticed some other problems. So it’s now launching as a modular application as well. This time I’ve carefully

[10] Review request: JDK-8090012 : ColorPicker, undefined custom color has blank tooltip.

Hi Jonathan,     Request you to review below fix for ColorPicker control -     Bug : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8090012     Fix : http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aghaisas/fx/8090012/webrev.0/ Regards, Ajit

[10] Review request: JDK-8088436 : [ColorPicker] When focusing on a non 100% opacity color, the color is displayed incorrect.

Hi Jonathan, Request you to review below fix for ColorPicker control - Bug : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8088436 Fix : http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aghaisas/fx/8088436/webrev.0/ I have also attached before and after screenshots to the bug in JBS

[9] Review request: 8177412: Remove unused third-party code from WebKit sources

Hi Guru and Arun, Please review the following: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8177412 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8177412/webrev.00/ This removed the unused code listed in the bug description. The product code is unaffected by this fix. -- Kevin

Re: [9] [8u] Review request for 8177284: HTMLEditor fails to load resources from modena.css if security manager is present

Hi Guru, This is a P3 bug (and not a regression), so is not approved for pushing to JDK 9. It can be targeted to 10, however, once the review is complete. It should not be backported to either JDK 9 or JDK 8u. -- Kevin Guru Hb wrote: Hi Kevin & Jonathan, Please review the fix for:

[9] [8u] Review request for 8165342: NPE when JavaFX loads default stylesheet or font families if CCL is null

Please review the following fix: JBS: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8165342 9 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8165342/9/webrev.00/ 8u webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8165342/8u/webrev.00/ This was initially discovered in JDK 8u and is a regression from JDK 7

[9] Review request: 8177081: visible entity for @ in sample code in ImageView

Please review the following simple doc fix: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8177081 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8177081/webrev.00/ Thanks. -- Kevin

[9] Review request: 8172069: Modena sample: no response after clicking "Restart" button

Chien, Please review this fix for a typo in one of our demo programs. https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8172069 The one line fix is in JBS. -- Kevin

[9] Review request: 8176818: Disable failing full-screen and maximize tests on Mac

[Resend with correct JBS bug ID] Please review this simple fix to disable 3 failing unit tests on Mac platforms (there are already JBS bugs filed tracking the failures on Mac). https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8176818 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8176818/webrev.00/ -- Kevin

[9] Review request: 8174123: Disable failing full-screen and maximize tests on Mac

Please review this simple fix to disable 3 failing unit tests on Mac platforms (there are already JBS bugs filed tracking the failures on Mac). https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8174123 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8176818/webrev.00/ -- Kevin

[9] Review request for 8175822: Pulldown position regression and not painting correctly tooltips regression

Hello Kevin & David, Please review the fix for jfx9: bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8175822 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ssadetsky/8175822/webrev.00/ --Semyon

[9] Review request: 8176770: Use consistent naming for LGPL in license files

Please review the following simple change to use a consistent name in the markdown files for the LGPL license (this does not change the text of the license itself, just the title). https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8176770 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8176770/webrev.00/ Thanks

[9] Review request: 8176582 javapackager.exe doesn't work from c:\program files

Kevin, Victor, Please review this change to add quotes around path strings. JIRA: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8176582 Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~cbensen/JDK-8176582/webrev.01/ Chris

[9] Review request: 8090255: Fix doclint errors and warnings in JavaFX API docs

Chien & Jonathan, Please review the javadoc changes for the rest of the modules -- javafx.fxml, javafx.media, javafx.web -- to make them doclint clean. https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8090255 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8090255/webrev.00/ Component owners for these three mod

[9] Code Review Request 8163385: Fix doclint errors and warnings in javafx.controls module

Hi Jonathan and Kevin, Please review the proposed fix. JIRA: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8163385 Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ckyang/JDK-8163385/webrev.00/ Thanks, - Chien

[9] Review request: 8175051: PerspectiveCamera docs are misleading for movable Camera

Hi Chien, Please review the following doc fix: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8175051 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8175051/webrev.00/ Thanks. -- Kevin

[9] Review request: 8176158: Fix typos in FX API docs

Hi Jonathan, Please review the following doc change: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8176158 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8176158/webrev.00/ Thanks. -- Kevin

[9] Review request: 8174971: Missing modified source location in third-party WebKit, GStreamer, and Glib licenses

Alexander & Guru, Please review the following addition to the 3rd-party license files for media & web: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8174971 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8174971/webrev.00/ -- Kevin

[10] Review request: 8176316: Change JavaFX release version to 10

[resend to fix URL for webrev] Hi Dave, Please review the following to change the FX release version to 10 in the soon-to-be-opened FX 10 forest: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8176316 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8176316/webrev.00/ Thanks. -- Kevin

[10] Review request: 8176316: Change JavaFX release version to 10

Hi Dave, Please review the following to change the FX release version to 10 in the soon-to-be-opened FX 10 forest: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8176316 http://jfx.us.oracle.com/shared-webrev/kcr/8176316/webrev-jfx.00/ Thanks. -- Kevin

[9] Review request: 8174972: WebKit version number is missing in third-party license file

Please review the following simple fix to add the WebKit version number (602.1) to the third-party license file: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8174972 The one line diff is in a JBS comment: -- Kevin

Re: [9] Review request: 8170701: Update FXML documentation for setAccessible

> I see. I’m not close to this spec. I am not sure if it worths further clarification such as “it is a public member”. I’ll leave it up for you to decide. I like this suggestion, so I will change it before I push. Thanks. -- Kevin Mandy Chung wrote: On Mar 6, 2017, at 7:11 AM, Kevin

Re: [9] Review request: 8170701: Update FXML documentation for setAccessible

> On Mar 6, 2017, at 7:11 AM, Kevin Rushforth > wrote: > > > > Mandy Chung wrote: >> >>> On Mar 4, 2017, at 5:14 PM, Kevin Rushforth >>> wrote: >>> >>>

[9] Review request for 8176236: Some field descriptions are truncated after the JDK-8163501

Kevin, Could you please review this fix? https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8176236 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vadim/8176236/webrev.00/ Thanks, Vadim

Re: [9] Review request: 8170702: Document that javafx.graphics needs explicit access to application main class

Mandy Chung wrote: On Mar 4, 2017, at 5:15 PM, Kevin Rushforth wrote: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8170702/webrev.01/ Nit: @linkplain will show the normal font as text in javadoc rather than like the font for {@code…} Right...see my other reply.

Re: [9] Review request: 8170701: Update FXML documentation for setAccessible

Mandy Chung wrote: On Mar 4, 2017, at 5:14 PM, Kevin Rushforth wrote: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8170701/webrev.01/ 40 * object {@link Module#isOpen opens} the containing package to the Nit: s/@link/@linkplain 41 * {@code javafx.fxml} module,

Re: [9] Review request: 8170702: Document that javafx.graphics needs explicit access to application main class

Mandy Chung wrote: On Mar 4, 2017, at 1:04 AM, Kevin Rushforth <kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com <mailto:kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com>> wrote: Mandy Chung wrote: On Mar 3, 2017, at 10:36 PM, Kevin Rushforth <kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com> wrote: [fixed subject line] Please re

Re: [9] Review request: 8170701: Update FXML documentation for setAccessible

> On Mar 4, 2017, at 5:14 PM, Kevin Rushforth > wrote: > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8170701/webrev.01/ > 40 * object {@link Module#isOpen opens} the containing package to the Nit: s/@link/@linkplain 41 * {@code javafx.fxml} module, either in its

Re: [9] Review request: 8170702: Document that javafx.graphics needs explicit access to application main class

> On Mar 4, 2017, at 1:04 AM, Kevin Rushforth <kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com> > wrote: > > > > Mandy Chung wrote: >> >>> On Mar 3, 2017, at 10:36 PM, Kevin Rushforth <kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com> >>> <mailto:kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com>

Re: [9] Review request: 8170702: Document that javafx.graphics needs explicit access to application main class

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8170702/webrev.01/ Kevin Rushforth wrote: Mandy Chung wrote: On Mar 3, 2017, at 10:36 PM, Kevin Rushforth <kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com> wrote: [fixed subject line] Please review the following to document that javafx.graphics needs explicit

Re: [9] Review request: 8170701: Update FXML documentation for setAccessible

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8170701/webrev.01/ Kevin Rushforth wrote: Mandy Chung wrote: On Mar 3, 2017, at 10:29 PM, Kevin Rushforth <kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com> wrote: Please review the following to update the FXML docs to document the requirement for a module that annotat

Re: [9] Review request: 8170701: Update FXML documentation for setAccessible

Mandy Chung wrote: On Mar 3, 2017, at 10:29 PM, Kevin Rushforth <kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com> wrote: Please review the following to update the FXML docs to document the requirement for a module that annotates non-public members with @FXML to "open" the containing package to

Re: [9] Review request: 8170702: Document that javafx.graphics needs explicit access to application main class

Mandy Chung wrote: On Mar 3, 2017, at 10:36 PM, Kevin Rushforth <kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com> wrote: [fixed subject line] Please review the following to document that javafx.graphics needs explicit access to the Application class. https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-817070

[9] Review request: 8176167: Point to JDK 9 EA docs when building FX 9 docs

Dave, Please review the following to point to the right place when we have a link to a JDK API when building the FX javadocs: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8176167 The one-line diff is in the bug report: -- Kevin

Re: [9] Review request: 8170702: Document that javafx.graphics needs explicit access to application main class

> On Mar 3, 2017, at 10:36 PM, Kevin Rushforth <kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com> > wrote: > > [fixed subject line] > > Please review the following to document that javafx.graphics needs explicit > access to the Application class. > > https://bugs.openjdk.j

Re: [9] Review request: 8170701: Update FXML documentation for setAccessible

> On Mar 3, 2017, at 10:29 PM, Kevin Rushforth <kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com> > wrote: > > Please review the following to update the FXML docs to document the > requirement for a module that annotates non-public members with @FXML to > "open" the containing

[9] Review request: 8170702: Document that javafx.graphics needs explicit access to application main class

[fixed subject line] Please review the following to document that javafx.graphics needs explicit access to the Application class. https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8170702 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8170702/webrev.00/ -- Kevin

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >