Details
-
Bug
-
Resolution: Fixed
-
P3
-
1.4.0, 6
-
b95
-
x86, sparc
-
solaris_2.6, windows_xp
Description
The DataFlavor docs are sparse in a number of places:
1. What makes a DataFlavor unique? Is is the triplet of the representation class, charset and mime type? This should be clearly specified in the class level doc.
2. What is the precedence given to representation class? What happens if you ask for a DataFlavor and don't specify a representation class where as the person providing the transferable does specify a representation class?
3. The behavior of javaJVMLocalObjectMimeType should be clearly documented. The docs don't mention the lifetime of the object or that the object is serialized. This is key information and should be specified.
1. What makes a DataFlavor unique? Is is the triplet of the representation class, charset and mime type? This should be clearly specified in the class level doc.
2. What is the precedence given to representation class? What happens if you ask for a DataFlavor and don't specify a representation class where as the person providing the transferable does specify a representation class?
3. The behavior of javaJVMLocalObjectMimeType should be clearly documented. The docs don't mention the lifetime of the object or that the object is serialized. This is key information and should be specified.
Attachments
Issue Links
- duplicates
-
JDK-4690519 spec for DataFlavor is contradictory
- Closed