JDK-5061476 : Generification conflict: Properties vs. java.awt.image.ImageConsumer
  • Type: Bug
  • Component: core-libs
  • Sub-Component: java.util
  • Affected Version: 5.0
  • Priority: P2
  • Status: Resolved
  • Resolution: Fixed
  • OS: solaris_8
  • CPU: generic
  • Submitted: 2004-06-10
  • Updated: 2004-07-21
  • Resolved: 2004-07-21
The Version table provides details related to the release that this issue/RFE will be addressed.

Unresolved : Release in which this issue/RFE will be addressed.
Resolved: Release in which this issue/RFE has been resolved.
Fixed : Release in which this issue/RFE has been fixed. The release containing this fix may be available for download as an Early Access Release or a General Availability Release.

To download the current JDK release, click here.
Other
5.0 b59Fixed
Related Reports
Relates :  
JDK-5064052 - unnecessary bridge methods interfere with some generics retrofitting
Description
The generification of java.util.Properties and java.awt.image.ImageConsumer
no longer support passing a Properties as the parameter to
ImageConsumer.setProperties because they have incompatible generic types.
Similarly for any implementation of this interface, such as 
java.awt.image.ImageFilter, image.PixelGrabber, image.ImageRepresentation.
Similarly for java.awt.image.MemoryImageSource's constructor.
Comments
CONVERTED DATA BugTraq+ Release Management Values COMMIT TO FIX: tiger-rc FIXED IN: tiger-rc INTEGRATED IN: tiger-b59 tiger-rc
03-08-2004
EVALUATION The best fix for this bug would be to revise java.util.Properties to extend Hashtable<String,String>, as suggested, but doing that in a binary-compatible way first requires that 5064052 (unnecessary bridge methods interfere with some generics retrofitting) be fixed. -- ###@###.### 2004/6/16 Unfortunately it proved impossible to revise java.util.Properties to extend Hashtable<String,String> since that would have introduced a subtle binary incompatibility. The relevant APIs have instead been revised to accept arguments of type Hashtable<?,?> rather than their current, more-specific types. -- ###@###.### 2004/7/16
07-12-0182