Fwd: review request 7097386: Correct error in Predicate javadoc example --- Still need an approval from a reviewer

2013-09-17 Thread Lance Andersen - Oracle
Hi Folks,

Aleksey has been kind enough to review this change.  Still need the blessing of 
a reviewer to put this back...

any takers :-)

Best
Lance

Begin forwarded message:

 From: Lance Andersen - Oracle lance.ander...@oracle.com
 Date: September 16, 2013 7:12:09 AM EDT
 To: Aleksey Shipilev aleksey.shipi...@oracle.com
 Cc: core-libs-dev Core-Libs-Dev core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net
 Subject: Re: review request 7097386: Correct error in Predicate javadoc 
 example
 
 Thanks for the input.
 On Sep 16, 2013, at 4:58 AM, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
 
 On 09/15/2013 10:38 PM, Lance Andersen - Oracle wrote:
 I added a webrev
 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~lancea/7097386/webrev.00/ as it might be
 a bit easier for this review.
 
 Notes:
 - change C-style int v[] declarations to Java-ish int[] v.
 
 I changed this.
 - catching SQLException should probably return false right away?
 True, was a missing cut and paste from the code I copied
 - if block can float up to the exception handler block, eliminating
 the need for int value = 0 line.
 
 I left it as is as I try to keep the try/catch for SQLExceptions to just 
 relevant code when applicable.
 
 Otherwise, looks good (not a Reviewer).
 
 again, thank you for the feedback.
 
 Changes are at http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~lancea/7097386/webrev.01/
 
 Best
 Lance
 Thanks,
 -Aleksey,
 
 
 Lance Andersen| Principal Member of Technical Staff | +1.781.442.2037
 Oracle Java Engineering 
 1 Network Drive 
 Burlington, MA 01803
 lance.ander...@oracle.com
 


Lance Andersen| Principal Member of Technical Staff | +1.781.442.2037
Oracle Java Engineering 
1 Network Drive 
Burlington, MA 01803
lance.ander...@oracle.com



Re: Fwd: review request 7097386: Correct error in Predicate javadoc example --- Still need an approval from a reviewer

2013-09-17 Thread Alan Bateman

On 17/09/2013 11:55, Lance Andersen - Oracle wrote:

Hi Folks,

Aleksey has been kind enough to review this change.  Still need the blessing of 
a reviewer to put this back...

any takers :-)
It looks okay although if is this is sample code that we expect 
developers to copy then we could do more, like taking a defensive copy 
of the array. If that is going further than you originally expected then 
you can ignore this suggestion.


-Alan.