[cp-patches] FYI: MetalIconFactory and MetalTextFieldUI function implementations

[Lillian Angel]

Some mauve tests were submitted to test the MetalIconFactory icons. I
fixed them to return a shared instance instead of creating a new Icon
instance each time.

2005-11-23  Lillian Angel  <address@hidden>

        * javax/swing/plaf/metal/MetalIconFactory.java:
        Added new fields to store an instance of the icons.
        (getMenuArrowIcon): Fixed to make use of the new field.
        (getMenuItemArrowIcon): Fixed implementation to return
        an instance of the icon, instead of calling getMenuArrowIcon.
        Even though, these two look identical.



On Wed, 2005-11-23 at 10:25 -0500, Lillian Angel wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-11-23 at 11:43 +0100, Roman Kennke wrote:
> > Hi Lillian,
> > 
> > Am Dienstag, den 22.11.2005, 15:15 -0500 schrieb Lillian Angel:
> > > Added implementations for missing functions in MetalIconFactory and
> > > MetalTextFieldUI.
> > > 
> > > 2005-11-22  Lillian Angel  <address@hidden>
> > > 
> > >         * javax/swing/plaf/metal/MetalIconFactory.java
> > >         (getMenuArrowIcon): Implemented.
> > >         (getMenuItemArrowIcon): Implemented to call getMenuArrowIcon,
> > >         because both icons look the same.
> > 
> > Would be useful to figure out if this really should return the same icon
> > class. They may look the same in some scenarious, but differ in
> > others...
> 
> Roman and I agreed to leave this. The arrow icons look identical in all
> scenarios. If anyone sees differently, please let me know.
> 
> > 
> > >         (getMenuItemCheckIcon): Implemented.
> > >         * javax/swing/plaf/metal/MetalTextFieldUI.java
> > >         (propertyChange): Implemented to call super only, because it
> > >         is a hook method. It doesn't have a different purpose from
> > >         BasicLookAndFeel, other than allowing a subclass to override it.
> > 
> > I disagree. If the hook is provided in the BasicLookAndFeel and it's
> > specified to be overridden in MetalTextFieldUI, then there must be some
> > functionality there. Only calling super.propertyChange() doesn't change
> > anything (except some additional useless calls) from not implementing
> > this class at all in MetalTextFieldUI. I would guess that there actually
> > _should_ be some functionality in this method. Would be good to figure
> > out.
> 
> Neither Roman or I could see what else should be done here. I am leaving
> it as is for now.
> 
> Lillian
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Classpath-patches mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath-patches

patch.diff
Description: Text Data