The fix looks good to me.
Thanks,
Alexandr.
On 10/31/2016 9:31 PM, Jim Graham wrote:
Looks good. +1
...jim
On 10/30/16 11:53 PM, Avik Niyogi wrote:
Hi All,
Please review the proposed specification for JDK9 including inputs
from reviewer reviews.
*cr.openjdk.java.net/~aniyogi/8138771/webrev.05/*
<http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aniyogi/8138771/webrev.05/>
Thank you in advance.
With Regards,
Avik Niyogi
On 28-Oct-2016, at 1:18 am, Jim Graham <james.gra...@oracle.com
<mailto:james.gra...@oracle.com>> wrote:
Hi Avik,
My suggestion about adding a word "the" was not taken and a couple
of other changes were made to the @return
statements which are not optimal. Let's reset and use the following
@return statements for each of the methods (to
mirror the way these are described in the Image base class):
getWidth() - @return the width of the base image, or -1 if the width
is not yet known
getHeight() - @return the height of the base image, or -1 if the
height is not yet known
getGraphics() - @return throws {@code UnsupportedOperationException}
getSource() - @return the image producer that produces the pixels
for the base image
getProperty() - @return the value of the named property in the base
image
(It would also be nice if the blank lines were the same in all of
the doc comments. Some comments have a couple of
blank lines to separate the javadoc sections and others have no
blank lines. But, that doesn't affect correctness, it
is just an easthetic issue...)
...jim
On 10/26/16 11:51 PM, Avik Niyogi wrote:
Hi All,
Please review the proposed specification for JDK9 including inputs
from reviewer reviews.
*http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aniyogi/8138771/webrev.04/*
Thank you in advance.
With Regards,
Avik Niyogi
On 27-Oct-2016, at 2:33 am, Jim Graham <james.gra...@oracle.com
<mailto:james.gra...@oracle.com>
<mailto:james.gra...@oracle.com>> wrote:
The "@return" tags should not start with "returns" in the text.
Also, in the @return for getProperty(), insert a word "the" as
"the property of the base image"...
...jim
On 10/26/16 12:36 AM, Avik Niyogi wrote:
Hi All,
Please review the proposed specification for JDK9 including
inputs from reviver reviews.
*cr.openjdk.java.net/~aniyogi/8138771/webrev.03/*
<http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aniyogi/8138771/webrev.03/*>
<http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aniyogi/8138771/webrev.03/*>
<http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aniyogi/8138771/webrev.03/>
Thank you in advance.
With Regards,
Avik Niyogi
