On Fri, 11 Mar 2022 21:46:23 GMT, Alexey Ivanov <aiva...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> We shouldn't be setting any MediaTracker status here - this is the caller ! >> It would be absolutely wrong. And it seems likely to me that this println >> was put there by the developer of this code who was him/herself not sure if >> this would occur and what to do about it so wanted to have a message if it >> ever occurred so they could figure out how to handle it. >> It seems to me that if the thread were interrupted there'd only be a very >> narrow window in which it likely that the image were complete and that if >> interrupted then I agree with what I think Alexey is saying which is that >> the MediaTracker may not have had a chance to even update status since it >> was interrupted .. depends how sophisticated the implementation is. >> Since ImageIcon.getLoadStatus() specifies only 3 possible return values then >> yes, we should ensure it is one of those . So if it is LOADING then set it >> to ABORTED .. However a possible wrinkle is that this call being interrupted >> may not actually prevent the separate threads the MediaTracker kicks off >> from continuing .. so it may actually be still loading. And it is just that >> the waiting was interrupted. >> Someone would need to dig into MediaTracker to check. >> But since the code removes the image from the tracker .. maybe we don't care >> ? > > Since the image is removed from MediaTracker, its status can't change after > that. Therefore `LOADING` status should be changed to `ABORTED`. > [JDK-6421373](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-6421373) has a test > case which can be modified to load an image and check `loadStatus` of the > image. @aivanov-jdk , even after interrupted the load status gets the "COMPLETE" status and I'm able to use the Imageicon for frame...... ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/7754
