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

List:       openjdk-openjfx-dev
Subject:    Re: [9] review request: 8149967: Cannot compile JFXPanel with JDK 9: SurfaceData::getDefaultScale no
From:       Kevin Rushforth <kevin.rushforth () oracle ! com>
Date:       2016-02-17 20:51:28
Message-ID: 56C4DD50.9030106 () oracle ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Ah, I see. I missed that point.

-- Kevin


Jim Graham wrote:
> I think what Sergey was getting at is that in the short term you could 
> use GC.getDefaultTransform() without any reflection as a workaround, 
> but if you've already done the reflection work and it's going away 
> shortly it doesn't really matter.
>
> In the end you would want to use the getScaleXY() methods anyway as 
> that avoids having to construct a transform as in the getDefaultTX() 
> case...
>
>             ...jim
>
> On 2/17/2016 6:52 AM, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
>> Thanks, Sergey.
>>
>> I will file a follow-up issue to remove the reflection code and provide
>> a suitable replacement.
>>
>> -- Kevin
>>
>>
>> Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
>>> Note that in jdk9 the same data can be obtained via
>>> GraphicsConfiguration.getDefaultTransform();
>>>
>>> On 17.02.16 2:53, Jim Graham wrote:
>>>> I added a comment on the bug about BC, but it sounds like you already
>>>> considered it.  I'm fine with this as is, but would push for moving to
>>>> JDK9 ASAP...
>>>>
>>>>              ...jim
>>>>
>>>> On 2/16/2016 3:49 PM, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
>>>>> [resend with correct subject line]
>>>>>
>>>>> Jim and Alexander,
>>>>>
>>>>> Please review the following fix to allow JFXPanel to compile (and 
>>>>> run)
>>>>> again on JDK 9.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8149967
>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kcr/8149967/webrev.00/
>>>>>
>>>>> Note that I did not provide a fallback to the existing JDK 8 method,
>>>>> since we are going to require JDK 9 soon anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note also that there is still one more bug fix needed before we can
>>>>> compile everything with JDK 9, so this is necessary but not 
>>>>> sufficient.
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Kevin
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]