On Oct 4 2013, at 13:58 , Brian Burkhalter wrote:
> On Oct 3, 2013, at 5:38 PM, Brian Burkhalter wrote:
>
>> On Oct 3, 2013, at 5:35 PM, Alan Bateman wrote:
>>
>>> On 03/10/2013 16:10, Brian Burkhalter wrote:
>>>> Please review and comment at your convenience.
>>>>
>>>> Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-7179567
>>>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bpb/7179567/
>
> An updated webrev which I hope adequately addresses the expressed concerns
> may be found at:
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bpb/7179567.2/
Looks good to me.
Does the addition of "If {@code codesource} is {@code null} the returned {@code
PermissionCollection} is empty." constitute a spec change or just a
clarification? I see the URClassLoader change @@ -625,10 +661,14 @@ but am
unsure.
Mike
>
>>
>>> Will you be adding tests for these cases to the webrev?
>>
>> As needed once the concept in general is accepted.
>
> The foregoing webrev includes a test of the affected public methods.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Brian
