[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       openjdk-2d-dev
Subject:    Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] [9] RFR JDK-8164931 : Verify if writer.abort() works properly for all writers i
From:       Phil Race <philip.race () oracle ! com>
Date:       2016-09-27 16:24:43
Message-ID: f270e468-0ae5-92fb-a9cc-f9272d13b0c6 () oracle ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

+1

-phil.

On 9/27/2016 8:26 AM, Brian Burkhalter wrote:
> Hi Jay,
>
> I think this looks better. +1.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Brian
>
> On Sep 27, 2016, at 2:36 AM, Jayathirth D V <jayathirth.d.v@oracle.com 
> <mailto:jayathirth.d.v@oracle.com>> wrote:
>
>> Hi Brain,
>> Thanks for your review.
>> I was keeping check for abortRequest() right after 
>> processImageProgess() call as I did for all other plugins.
>> I have moved the complete processImageProgress() check to the end 
>> after last tile is written. Its better if we finish everything 
>> related to the write loop before we call processImageProgress().
>> Please find updated webrev for review:
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jdv/8164931/webrev.03/ 
>> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Ejdv/8164931/webrev.03/>
>> Thanks,
>> Jay
>> *From:*Brian Burkhalter
>> *Sent:*Tuesday, September 27, 2016 4:54 AM
>> *To:*Philip Race
>> *Cc:*Jayathirth D V; 2d-dev
>> *Subject:*Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] [9] RFR JDK-8164931 : Verify if 
>> writer.abort() works properly for all writers in 
>> IIOWriteProgressListener.
>> My off-list question was this:
>>
>>     I am probably missing something, but with respect to the TIFF
>>     writer, why is it necessary to move old lines 2607-2610 to new
>>     lines 2596-2599? In the old version, for whatever it’s worth, the
>>     tile offset and byte count are written before the abort, so if
>>     one wanted for some reason to read the output image up to the
>>     point of where the write is aborted the last tile would be
>>     accessible whereas in the new code it would not be.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Brian
>> On Sep 26, 2016, at 4:12 PM, Philip Race <philip.race@oracle.com 
>> <mailto:philip.race@oracle.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>     Seems OK .. modulo Brian's off-list question about TIFF
>>
>

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]