JDK-6387579 : Usage of package-private class as parameter of a method (javax.swing.tree.DefaultTreeSelectionModel)
  • Type: Bug
  • Component: client-libs
  • Sub-Component: javax.swing
  • Affected Version: 6
  • Priority: P2
  • Status: Resolved
  • Resolution: Fixed
  • OS: generic
  • CPU: generic
  • Submitted: 2006-02-17
  • Updated: 2017-05-16
  • Resolved: 2009-09-16
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.
JDK 7
7 b72Fixed
Related Reports
Relates :  
JDK-6387360 - Usage of package-private class as a parameter of a method (javax.swing.text.ParagraphView)
Relates :  
CODETOOLS-6801782 - Allow setup command to write inconsistent signatures for (package)-private method parameters
Description
Split off from 6387360.

The javax.swing.tree.PathPlaceHolder package-private class is referenced to from the following method of public javax.swing.tree.DefaultTreeSelectionModel class:

protected void notifyPathChange(Vector<javax.swing.tree.PathPlaceHolder> changedPaths,
                                TreePath oldLeadSelection)
Comments
EVALUATION Vector<PathPlaceHolder> is being replaced with raw Vector in the method signature. The method is also made deprecated.
01-09-2009
EVALUATION Because this method takes public classes, it's possible for a developer to override it. While I don't expect a developer to have overriden this method, they still might have. As this code has existed since 1.2 there is little reason to try and remove it now. I exchanged email with Mark and he was of the opinion it shouldn't be removed. As such, I'm closing out as will not fix.
08-03-2006
EVALUATION In communication with Mark as to whether or not we would be allowed to remove this.
23-02-2006