On 04/13/12 23:13, Clemens Eisserer wrote:
I'm sorry for such a long delay. I'll push the fix next week.
Thanks a lot :-)
Here it is: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/awt/jdk/rev/7b0ed75abef4
I forgot to add the Contributed-by: line to the changeset and didn't
substitute the author of the
So if this fix hasn't been already been pushed, could somebody please push it?
Thanks, Clemens
Hi Clemens,
I'm sorry for such a long delay. I'll push the fix next week.
--
best regards,
Anthony
On 4/13/2012 8:23 PM, Clemens Eisserer wrote:
So if this fix hasn't been already been pushed, could somebody please push it?
Thanks, Clemens
Hi Anthony,
I'm sorry for such a long delay. I'll push the fix next week.
Thanks a lot :-)
- Clemens
Hi Clemens,
On 08/20/11 02:12, Clemens Eisserer wrote:
The original code is rather strange. The static field will be
default initialized to zero, the AppContext constructor will
increment it to 1, then the static block explicitly sets it to one.
It would be cleaner/clearer if
On 8/22/2011 8:24 AM, David Holmes wrote:
On 20/08/2011 8:12 AM, Clemens Eisserer wrote:
The original code is rather strange. The static field will be default
initialized to zero, the AppContext constructor will increment it to 1,
then the static block explicitly sets it to one.
It would be
Hi,
Found a mistake, corrected version at:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ceisserer/7080700/webrev.02/
It ended up with numAppContexts=2 when class-initialization was done,
although there was only one context.
It's not clear to me why this case needs to be handled specially. I also
can't tell what
Sorry the first patch was broken, as the static block executed before the
static initializer.
I've uploaded a corrected version to:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ceisserer/7080700/webrev.01/
Is it ok to initialize to 1 directly in line 199?
Thanks Clemens
2011/8/18 Clemens Eisserer linuxhi...@gmail.com:
Sorry the first patch was broken, as the static block executed before the
static initializer.
I've uploaded a corrected version to:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ceisserer/7080700/webrev.01/
Is it ok to initialize to 1 directly in line 199?
On 19/08/2011 8:02 AM, Clemens Eisserer wrote:
Mario wrote:
It looks good to me, and I don't expect any issues after this patch.
The only thing is that you should check the settings for the editor, I
think you still use a mix of tabs and spaces :)
Hmm, I should really check those
10 matches
Mail list logo
