net-dev  

Messages by Thread

• • Re: RFR: 8351594: JFR: Rate-limited sampling of Java events Markus Grönlund
  • Re: RFR: 8351594: JFR: Rate-limited sampling of Java events Markus Grönlund
  • Re: RFR: 8351594: JFR: Rate-limited sampling of Java events Markus Grönlund
  • Re: RFR: 8351594: JFR: Rate-limited sampling of Java events Markus Grönlund
  • Re: RFR: 8351594: JFR: Rate-limited sampling of Java events [v2] Erik Gahlin
  • Re: RFR: 8351594: JFR: Rate-limited sampling of Java events Markus Grönlund
  • Re: RFR: 8351594: JFR: Rate-limited sampling of Java events Markus Grönlund
  • Re: RFR: 8351594: JFR: Rate-limited sampling of Java events Markus Grönlund
  • Re: RFR: 8351594: JFR: Rate-limited sampling of Java events Markus Grönlund
  • Re: RFR: 8351594: JFR: Rate-limited sampling of Java events Markus Grönlund
  • Re: RFR: 8351594: JFR: Rate-limited sampling of Java events [v2] Erik Gahlin
  • Re: RFR: 8351594: JFR: Rate-limited sampling of Java events [v2] Volkan Yazici
  • Re: RFR: 8351594: JFR: Rate-limited sampling of Java events [v2] Erik Gahlin
  • Re: RFR: 8351594: JFR: Rate-limited sampling of Java events [v3] Erik Gahlin
  • Re: RFR: 8351594: JFR: Rate-limited sampling of Java events [v3] Markus Grönlund
  • Re: RFR: 8351594: JFR: Rate-limited sampling of Java events [v3] Erik Gahlin
  • Re: RFR: 8351594: JFR: Rate-limited sampling of Java events [v3] Alan Bateman
  • Re: RFR: 8351594: JFR: Rate-limited sampling of Java events [v3] Alan Bateman
  • Re: RFR: 8351594: JFR: Rate-limited sampling of Java events [v3] Erik Gahlin
  • Re: RFR: 8351594: JFR: Rate-limited sampling of Java events [v3] Erik Gahlin
  • Re: RFR: 8351594: JFR: Rate-limited sampling of Java events [v3] Stuart Marks
  • Re: RFR: 8351594: JFR: Rate-limited sampling of Java events [v3] Erik Gahlin
  • Re: RFR: 8351594: JFR: Rate-limited sampling of Java events [v3] Alan Bateman
  • Re: RFR: 8351594: JFR: Rate-limited sampling of Java events [v4] Erik Gahlin
  • Re: RFR: 8351594: JFR: Rate-limited sampling of Java events [v5] Erik Gahlin
  • Re: RFR: 8351594: JFR: Rate-limited sampling of Java events [v6] Erik Gahlin
  • Re: RFR: 8351594: JFR: Rate-limited sampling of Java events [v6] Andrey Turbanov
  • Re: RFR: 8351594: JFR: Rate-limited sampling of Java events [v7] Erik Gahlin
  • Re: RFR: 8351594: JFR: Rate-limited sampling of Java events [v7] Alan Bateman
  • Re: RFR: 8351594: JFR: Rate-limited sampling of Java events [v8] Erik Gahlin
  • Re: RFR: 8351594: JFR: Rate-limited sampling of Java events [v8] Alan Bateman
  • Re: RFR: 8351594: JFR: Rate-limited sampling of Java events [v8] Alan Bateman
  • Re: RFR: 8351594: JFR: Rate-limited sampling of Java events [v8] Alan Bateman
  • Re: RFR: 8351594: JFR: Rate-limited sampling of Java events [v8] Erik Gahlin
  • Re: RFR: 8351594: JFR: Rate-limited sampling of Java events [v9] Erik Gahlin
  • Re: RFR: 8351594: JFR: Rate-limited sampling of Java events [v9] Alan Bateman
  • Re: RFR: 8351594: JFR: Rate-limited sampling of Java events [v9] Erik Gahlin
  • Re: RFR: 8351594: JFR: Rate-limited sampling of Java events [v9] Alan Bateman
  • Re: RFR: 8351594: JFR: Rate-limited sampling of Java events [v9] Erik Gahlin
  • Re: RFR: 8351594: JFR: Rate-limited sampling of Java events [v9] Markus Grönlund
  • Integrated: 8351594: JFR: Rate-limited sampling of Java events Erik Gahlin
• Re: RFR: 8337143: (fc, fs) Move filesystem-related native objects from libnio to libjava [v14] Brian Burkhalter
• RFR: 8228773: URLClassLoader constructors should include API note warning that the parent should not be null Jaikiran Pai
  • Re: RFR: 8228773: URLClassLoader constructors should include API note warning that the parent should not be null Alan Bateman
  • Re: RFR: 8228773: URLClassLoader constructors should include API note warning that the parent should not be null [v2] Jaikiran Pai
  • Re: RFR: 8228773: URLClassLoader constructors should include API note warning that the parent should not be null Daniel Fuchs
  • Re: RFR: 8228773: URLClassLoader constructors should include API note warning that the parent should not be null [v2] Jaikiran Pai
  • Re: RFR: 8228773: URLClassLoader constructors should include API note warning that the parent should not be null [v2] Alan Bateman
  • Re: RFR: 8228773: URLClassLoader constructors should include API note warning that the parent should not be null [v2] Jaikiran Pai
  • Re: RFR: 8228773: URLClassLoader constructors should include API note warning that the parent should not be null [v2] Jaikiran Pai
  • Re: RFR: 8228773: URLClassLoader constructors should include API note warning that the parent should not be null [v3] Jaikiran Pai
  • Re: RFR: 8228773: URLClassLoader constructors should include API note warning that the parent should not be null [v3] Alan Bateman
  • Re: RFR: 8228773: URLClassLoader constructors should include API note warning that the parent should not be null [v3] Jaikiran Pai
  • Re: RFR: 8228773: URLClassLoader constructors should include API note warning that the parent should not be null [v2] Jaikiran Pai
  • Re: RFR: 8228773: URLClassLoader constructors should include API note warning that the parent should not be null [v3] Jaikiran Pai
  • Re: RFR: 8228773: URLClassLoader constructors should include API note warning that the parent should not be null [v3] Daniel Fuchs
  • Re: RFR: 8228773: URLClassLoader constructors should include API note warning that the parent should not be null [v3] Sean Mullan
  • Re: RFR: 8228773: URLClassLoader constructors should include API note warning that the parent should not be null [v3] Jaikiran Pai
  • Re: RFR: 8228773: URLClassLoader constructors should include API note warning that the parent should not be null [v4] Jaikiran Pai
  • Re: RFR: 8228773: URLClassLoader constructors should include API note warning that the parent should not be null [v4] Jaikiran Pai
  • Re: RFR: 8228773: URLClassLoader constructors should include API note warning that the parent should not be null [v4] Alan Bateman
  • Re: RFR: 8228773: URLClassLoader constructors should include API note warning that the parent should not be null [v4] Sean Mullan
  • Re: RFR: 8228773: URLClassLoader constructors should include API note warning that the parent should not be null [v4] Jaikiran Pai
  • Integrated: 8228773: URLClassLoader constructors should include API note warning that the parent should not be null Jaikiran Pai
• RFR: 8357639: DigestEchoClient fails intermittently due to: java.io.IOException: Data received while in pool Daniel Fuchs
  • Re: RFR: 8357639: DigestEchoClient fails intermittently due to: java.io.IOException: Data received while in pool [v2] Daniel Fuchs
  • Re: RFR: 8357639: DigestEchoClient fails intermittently due to: java.io.IOException: Data received while in pool [v3] Daniel Fuchs
  • Re: RFR: 8357639: DigestEchoClient fails intermittently due to: java.io.IOException: Data received while in pool [v3] Daniel Fuchs
  • Re: RFR: 8357639: DigestEchoClient fails intermittently due to: java.io.IOException: Data received while in pool [v4] Daniel Fuchs
  • Re: RFR: 8357639: DigestEchoClient fails intermittently due to: java.io.IOException: Data received while in pool [v4] Daniel Jeliński
  • Re: RFR: 8357639: DigestEchoClient fails intermittently due to: java.io.IOException: Data received while in pool [v4] Daniel Fuchs
  • Re: RFR: 8357639: DigestEchoClient fails intermittently due to: java.io.IOException: Data received while in pool [v5] Daniel Fuchs
  • Re: RFR: 8357639: DigestEchoClient fails intermittently due to: java.io.IOException: Data received while in pool [v5] Daniel Jeliński
  • Integrated: 8357639: DigestEchoClient fails intermittently due to: java.io.IOException: Data received while in pool Daniel Fuchs
• RFR: 8357539: TimeSource.now() is not monotonic Daniel Jeliński
  • Re: RFR: 8357539: TimeSource.now() is not monotonic Daniel Fuchs
  • Re: RFR: 8357539: TimeSource.now() is not monotonic Jaikiran Pai
  • Re: RFR: 8357539: TimeSource.now() is not monotonic Daniel Fuchs
  • Re: RFR: 8357539: TimeSource.now() is not monotonic Daniel Jeliński
  • Re: RFR: 8357539: TimeSource.now() is not monotonic [v2] Daniel Jeliński
  • Re: RFR: 8357539: TimeSource.now() is not monotonic [v2] Daniel Fuchs
  • Re: RFR: 8357539: TimeSource.now() is not monotonic [v2] Jaikiran Pai
  • Re: RFR: 8357539: TimeSource.now() is not monotonic [v3] Daniel Jeliński
  • Re: RFR: 8357539: TimeSource.now() is not monotonic [v3] Jaikiran Pai
  • Re: RFR: 8357539: TimeSource.now() is not monotonic [v3] Daniel Fuchs
  • Re: RFR: 8357539: TimeSource.now() is not monotonic [v3] Daniel Jeliński
  • Integrated: 8357539: TimeSource.now() is not monotonic Daniel Jeliński
• RFR: 8356893: Use "stdin.encoding" for reading System.in with InputStreamReader/Scanner Volkan Yazici
  • Re: RFR: 8356893: Use "stdin.encoding" for reading System.in with InputStreamReader/Scanner Roger Riggs
  • Re: RFR: 8356893: Use "stdin.encoding" for reading System.in with InputStreamReader/Scanner Volkan Yazici
  • Re: RFR: 8356893: Use "stdin.encoding" for reading System.in with InputStreamReader/Scanner Alan Bateman
  • Withdrawn: 8356893: Use "stdin.encoding" for reading System.in with InputStreamReader/Scanner Volkan Yazici
• RFR: 8357406: Remove usages of jdk.tracePinnedThreads system property from httpclient tests Jaikiran Pai
  • Re: RFR: 8357406: Remove usages of jdk.tracePinnedThreads system property from httpclient tests Volkan Yazici
  • Re: RFR: 8357406: Remove usages of jdk.tracePinnedThreads system property from httpclient tests Daniel Jeliński
  • Re: RFR: 8357406: Remove usages of jdk.tracePinnedThreads system property from httpclient tests Daniel Fuchs
  • Re: RFR: 8357406: Remove usages of jdk.tracePinnedThreads system property from httpclient tests SendaoYan
  • Integrated: 8357406: Remove usages of jdk.tracePinnedThreads system property from httpclient tests Jaikiran Pai
  • Re: RFR: 8357406: Remove usages of jdk.tracePinnedThreads system property from httpclient tests Jaikiran Pai
• RFR: 8357268: Use JavaNioAccess.getBufferAddress rather than DirectBuffer.address() Per Minborg
  • Re: RFR: 8357268: Use JavaNioAccess.getBufferAddress rather than DirectBuffer.address() Per Minborg
  • Re: RFR: 8357268: Use JavaNioAccess.getBufferAddress rather than DirectBuffer.address() [v7] Valerie Peng
  • Re: RFR: 8357268: Use JavaNioAccess.getBufferAddress rather than DirectBuffer.address() [v7] Valerie Peng
  • Re: RFR: 8357268: Use JavaNioAccess.getBufferAddress rather than DirectBuffer.address() Alan Bateman
  • Re: RFR: 8357268: Use JavaNioAccess.getBufferAddress rather than DirectBuffer.address() [v2] Per Minborg
  • Re: RFR: 8357268: Use JavaNioAccess.getBufferAddress rather than DirectBuffer.address() [v3] Per Minborg
  • Re: RFR: 8357268: Use JavaNioAccess.getBufferAddress rather than DirectBuffer.address() [v3] Alan Bateman
  • Re: RFR: 8357268: Use JavaNioAccess.getBufferAddress rather than DirectBuffer.address() [v3] Valerie Peng
  • Re: RFR: 8357268: Use JavaNioAccess.getBufferAddress rather than DirectBuffer.address() [v3] Alan Bateman
  • Re: RFR: 8357268: Use JavaNioAccess.getBufferAddress rather than DirectBuffer.address() [v3] Per Minborg
  • Re: RFR: 8357268: Use JavaNioAccess.getBufferAddress rather than DirectBuffer.address() [v3] Alan Bateman
  • Re: RFR: 8357268: Use JavaNioAccess.getBufferAddress rather than DirectBuffer.address() [v4] Per Minborg
  • Re: RFR: 8357268: Use JavaNioAccess.getBufferAddress rather than DirectBuffer.address() [v5] Per Minborg
  • Re: RFR: 8357268: Use JavaNioAccess.getBufferAddress rather than DirectBuffer.address() [v5] Shaojin Wen
  • Re: RFR: 8357268: Use JavaNioAccess.getBufferAddress rather than DirectBuffer.address() [v5] Shaojin Wen
  • Re: RFR: 8357268: Use JavaNioAccess.getBufferAddress rather than DirectBuffer.address() [v5] Valerie Peng
  • Re: RFR: 8357268: Use JavaNioAccess.getBufferAddress rather than DirectBuffer.address() [v5] Valerie Peng
  • Re: RFR: 8357268: Use JavaNioAccess.getBufferAddress rather than DirectBuffer.address() [v6] Per Minborg
  • Re: RFR: 8357268: Use JavaNioAccess.getBufferAddress rather than DirectBuffer.address() [v7] Per Minborg
  • Re: RFR: 8357268: Use JavaNioAccess.getBufferAddress rather than DirectBuffer.address() [v7] Valerie Peng
  • Re: RFR: 8357268: Use JavaNioAccess.getBufferAddress rather than DirectBuffer.address() [v7] Alan Bateman
  • Re: RFR: 8357268: Use JavaNioAccess.getBufferAddress rather than DirectBuffer.address() [v7] Alan Bateman
  • Re: RFR: 8357268: Use JavaNioAccess.getBufferAddress rather than DirectBuffer.address() [v7] Per Minborg
  • Re: RFR: 8357268: Use JavaNioAccess.getBufferAddress rather than DirectBuffer.address() [v7] Alan Bateman
  • Re: RFR: 8357268: Use JavaNioAccess.getBufferAddress rather than DirectBuffer.address() [v8] Per Minborg
  • Re: RFR: 8357268: Use JavaNioAccess.getBufferAddress rather than DirectBuffer.address() [v8] Alan Bateman
  • Re: RFR: 8357268: Use JavaNioAccess.getBufferAddress rather than DirectBuffer.address() [v8] Per Minborg
  • Re: RFR: 8357268: Use JavaNioAccess.getBufferAddress rather than DirectBuffer.address() [v9] Per Minborg
  • Re: RFR: 8357268: Use JavaNioAccess.getBufferAddress rather than DirectBuffer.address() [v10] Per Minborg
  • Re: RFR: 8357268: Use JavaNioAccess.getBufferAddress rather than DirectBuffer.address() [v10] Alan Bateman
  • Re: RFR: 8357268: Use JavaNioAccess.getBufferAddress rather than DirectBuffer.address() [v10] Per Minborg
  • Re: RFR: 8357268: Use JavaNioAccess.getBufferAddress rather than DirectBuffer.address() [v11] Per Minborg
  • Re: RFR: 8357268: Use JavaNioAccess.getBufferAddress rather than DirectBuffer.address() [v11] Alan Bateman
  • Integrated: 8357268: Use JavaNioAccess.getBufferAddress rather than DirectBuffer.address() Per Minborg
• RFR: 8356632: Fix remaining {@link/@linkplain} tags with refer to private/protected types in java.base Nizar Benalla
  • Re: RFR: 8356632: Fix remaining {@link/@linkplain} tags with refer to private/protected types in java.base Chen Liang
  • Re: RFR: 8356632: Fix remaining {@link/@linkplain} tags with refer to private/protected types in java.base Nizar Benalla
  • Re: RFR: 8356632: Fix remaining {@link/@linkplain} tags with refer to private/protected types in java.base Joe Darcy
  • Re: RFR: 8356632: Fix remaining {@link/@linkplain} tags with refer to private/protected types in java.base Nizar Benalla
  • Re: RFR: 8356632: Fix remaining {@link/@linkplain} tags with refer to private/protected types in java.base ExE Boss
  • Re: RFR: 8356632: Fix remaining {@link/@linkplain} tags with refer to private/protected types in java.base Alan Bateman
  • Re: RFR: 8356632: Fix remaining {@link/@linkplain} tags with refer to private/protected types in java.base Alan Bateman
  • Re: RFR: 8356632: Fix remaining {@link/@linkplain} tags with refer to private/protected types in java.base Daniel Fuchs
  • Re: RFR: 8356632: Fix remaining {@link/@linkplain} tags with refer to private/protected types in java.base [v2] Nizar Benalla
  • Re: RFR: 8356632: Fix remaining {@link/@linkplain} tags with refer to private/protected types in java.base [v2] Chen Liang
  • Re: RFR: 8356632: Fix remaining {@link/@linkplain} tags with refer to private/protected types in java.base [v2] Weijun Wang
  • Re: RFR: 8356632: Fix remaining {@link/@linkplain} tags with refer to private/protected types in java.base [v3] Nizar Benalla
  • Re: RFR: 8356632: Fix remaining {@link/@linkplain} tags with refer to private/protected types in java.base [v3] Weijun Wang
  • Re: RFR: 8356632: Fix remaining {@link/@linkplain} tags with refer to private/protected types in java.base [v3] Nizar Benalla
  • Integrated: 8356632: Fix remaining {@link/@linkplain} tags with refer to private/protected types in java.base Nizar Benalla
• RFR: 8357013: Optimize response code parsing in HttpURLConnection Patrick Strawderman
  • Re: RFR: 8357013: Optimize response code parsing in HttpURLConnection Daniel Fuchs
  • Re: RFR: 8357013: Optimize response code parsing in HttpURLConnection Patrick Strawderman
  • Re: RFR: 8357013: Optimize response code parsing in HttpURLConnection Daniel Fuchs
  • Re: RFR: 8357013: Optimize response code parsing in HttpURLConnection Daniel Fuchs
  • Re: RFR: 8357013: HttpURLConnection#getResponseCode can avoid substring call when parsing to int duke
  • Integrated: 8357013: HttpURLConnection#getResponseCode can avoid substring call when parsing to int Patrick Strawderman
• The default HttpServer Executor Josiah Noel
  • Re: The default HttpServer Executor Daniel Fuchs
  • Re: The default HttpServer Executor Josiah Noel
  • Re: The default HttpServer Executor Ethan McCue
  • Re: [External] : Re: The default HttpServer Executor Daniel Fuchs
  • Re: [External] : Re: The default HttpServer Executor Josiah Noel
• RFR: 8351347: HttpClient Improve logging of response headers Volkan Yazici
  • Re: RFR: 8351347: HttpClient Improve logging of response headers Daniel Fuchs
  • Re: RFR: 8351347: HttpClient Improve logging of response headers Volkan Yazici
  • Re: RFR: 8351347: HttpClient Improve logging of response headers Volkan Yazici
  • Re: RFR: 8351347: HttpClient Improve logging of response headers [v2] Volkan Yazici
  • Re: RFR: 8351347: HttpClient Improve logging of response headers [v2] Daniel Fuchs
  • Re: RFR: 8351347: HttpClient Improve logging of response headers [v2] Volkan Yazici
  • Re: RFR: 8351347: HttpClient Improve logging of response headers [v2] Volkan Yazici
  • Re: RFR: 8351347: HttpClient Improve logging of response headers [v3] Volkan Yazici
  • Re: RFR: 8351347: HttpClient Improve logging of response headers [v3] Volkan Yazici
  • Re: RFR: 8351347: HttpClient Improve logging of response headers [v3] Daniel Fuchs
  • Re: RFR: 8351347: HttpClient Improve logging of response headers [v3] Michael McMahon
  • Re: RFR: 8351347: HttpClient Improve logging of response headers [v3] duke
  • Re: RFR: 8351347: HttpClient Improve logging of response headers [v3] Volkan Yazici
  • Integrated: 8351347: HttpClient Improve logging of response headers Volkan Yazici
• RFR: 8353113: Peer supported certificate signature algorithms are not being checked with default SunX509 key manager Artur Barashev
  • Re: RFR: 8353113: Peer supported certificate signature algorithms are not being checked with default SunX509 key manager [v2] Artur Barashev
  • Re: RFR: 8353113: Peer supported certificate signature algorithms are not being checked with default SunX509 key manager [v3] Artur Barashev
  • Re: RFR: 8353113: Peer supported certificate signature algorithms are not being checked with default SunX509 key manager [v3] Hai-May Chao
  • Re: RFR: 8353113: Peer supported certificate signature algorithms are not being checked with default SunX509 key manager [v3] Artur Barashev
  • Re: RFR: 8353113: Peer supported certificate signature algorithms are not being checked with default SunX509 key manager [v3] Sean Mullan
  • Re: RFR: 8353113: Peer supported certificate signature algorithms are not being checked with default SunX509 key manager [v3] Hai-May Chao
  • Re: RFR: 8359956: Support algorithm constraints and certificate checks in SunX509 key manager [v3] Artur Barashev
  • Re: RFR: 8353113: Peer supported certificate signature algorithms are not being checked with default SunX509 key manager [v4] Artur Barashev
  • Re: RFR: 8353113: Peer supported certificate signature algorithms are not being checked with default SunX509 key manager [v4] Sean Mullan
  • Re: RFR: 8353113: Peer supported certificate signature algorithms are not being checked with default SunX509 key manager [v4] Artur Barashev
  • Re: RFR: 8353113: Peer supported certificate signature algorithms are not being checked with default SunX509 key manager [v4] Artur Barashev
  • Re: RFR: 8353113: Peer supported certificate signature algorithms are not being checked with default SunX509 key manager [v4] Sean Mullan
  • Re: RFR: 8353113: Peer supported certificate signature algorithms are not being checked with default SunX509 key manager [v4] Artur Barashev
  • Re: RFR: 8353113: Peer supported certificate signature algorithms are not being checked with default SunX509 key manager [v4] Sean Mullan
  • Re: RFR: 8359956: Support algorithm constraints and certificate checks in SunX509 key manager [v4] Artur Barashev
  • Re: RFR: 8353113: Peer supported certificate signature algorithms are not being checked with default SunX509 key manager [v4] Artur Barashev
  • Re: RFR: 8353113: Peer supported certificate signature algorithms are not being checked with default SunX509 key manager [v4] Sean Mullan
  • Re: RFR: 8353113: Peer supported certificate signature algorithms are not being checked with default SunX509 key manager [v4] Artur Barashev
  • Re: RFR: 8353113: Peer supported certificate signature algorithms are not being checked with default SunX509 key manager [v4] Artur Barashev
  • Re: RFR: 8353113: Peer supported certificate signature algorithms are not being checked with default SunX509 key manager [v4] Artur Barashev
  • Re: RFR: 8353113: Peer supported certificate signature algorithms are not being checked with default SunX509 key manager [v5] Artur Barashev

• Earlier messages
• Later messages