Kelly O'Hair said the following on 12/02/10 07:26:
On Dec 1, 2010, at 12:56 PM, Ulf Zibis wrote:
But yes, those scenarios could be improved, but IMHO smarter with
something like "java -version:java", (or interpreting the existing
"java -version" output, like Eclipse does), ... and - more import
Regarding the Forest extension:
Good to hear that changesets are coming in to fix those jaxp/jaxws/jaf
download locations.
> I can't agree with you more, but if these were the only issues you
ran into, I'm actually quite pleased.
Indeed. Given the complexity of the whole build I was really
On 11/29/10 5:03 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> On 15:08 Mon 29 Nov , Dalibor Topic wrote:
>> On 11/26/10 3:54 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>> On 11/26/2010 02:48 PM, Dalibor Topic wrote:
>>
Hm. It's been a long time since I heard of anyone use the binary plugs for
anything.
Cer
On Dec 1, 2010, at 12:56 PM, Ulf Zibis wrote:
Am 01.12.2010 20:38, schrieb Kelly O'Hair:
On Dec 1, 2010, at 11:15 AM, Ulf Zibis wrote:
Am 01.12.2010 17:43, schrieb Kelly O'Hair:
4.) "properties" file vs command line option or dll usage
interface:
- the interpretation of the usage/opti
Am 01.12.2010 17:43, schrieb Kelly O'Hair:
On Dec 1, 2010, at 7:27 AM, Ulf Zibis wrote:
b: As we have a bin\client\Xusage.txt, we additionally could have:
- bin\usage.txt
- bin\client\XXusage.txt
- bin\Jrocket\XXusage.txt
- etc.
and maybe (without help text, but with well defined syntax):
- bi
Am 01.12.2010 20:38, schrieb Kelly O'Hair:
On Dec 1, 2010, at 11:15 AM, Ulf Zibis wrote:
Am 01.12.2010 17:43, schrieb Kelly O'Hair:
4.) "properties" file vs command line option or dll usage interface:
- the interpretation of the usage/options.txt files should be optional for a
launcher, b
On 11:04 Wed 01 Dec , Kelly O'Hair wrote:
>
> Adding a CC to build-dev...
>
> On Dec 1, 2010, at 8:21 AM, Erwin Vervaet wrote:
>
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I'd like to bring up the topic of the ease of building the OpenJDK.
> >
> > Let me start with a bit of background. I attended an interesting
On Dec 1, 2010, at 11:15 AM, Ulf Zibis wrote:
Am 01.12.2010 17:43, schrieb Kelly O'Hair:
4.) "properties" file vs command line option or dll usage interface:
- the interpretation of the usage/options.txt files should be
optional for a launcher, but not
guaranteed to work.
- I propose add
Am 01.12.2010 17:43, schrieb Kelly O'Hair:
4.) "properties" file vs command line option or dll usage interface:
- the interpretation of the usage/options.txt files should be optional for a
launcher, but not
guaranteed to work.
- I propose additional command line options to output the valid ch
Am 01.12.2010 18:00, schrieb Kelly O'Hair:
Ah, but I should be able to point people at DrainO, even though it's poison. ;^)
I'm just providing a reference to a file (if it exists) that could help explain what VM's are
available.
If there was an official "vm.release" file, I could refer to that
Adding a CC to build-dev...
On Dec 1, 2010, at 8:21 AM, Erwin Vervaet wrote:
Hello all,
I'd like to bring up the topic of the ease of building the OpenJDK.
Let me start with a bit of background. I attended an interesting
OpenJDK talk by Dalibor at Devoxx 2010 earlier this month and
decid
Am 01.12.2010 17:43, schrieb Kelly O'Hair:
On Dec 1, 2010, at 7:27 AM, Ulf Zibis wrote:
1.) naming:
a: What would be the name for the JRE installation, "jre.release" ?
That would be a separate RFE in my opinion, easy to do but my primary target
was the jdk for now.
Maybe, but having the s
On Dec 1, 2010, at 6:28 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
Kelly O'Hair wrote:
A revised proposal...
Still called "jdk.release".
But if people really think "jdk.properties" sounds ok, at least the
names are unique and won't conflict.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ohair/openjdk7/jdk_release2/webrev/
A
On Dec 1, 2010, at 7:27 AM, Ulf Zibis wrote:
1.) naming:
a: What would be the name for the JRE installation, "jre.release" ?
That would be a separate RFE in my opinion, easy to do but my primary
target was the jdk for now.
b: As we have a bin\client\Xusage.txt, we additionally could have
On Nov 30, 2010, at 7:31 PM, David Schlosnagle wrote:
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 8:34 PM, Kelly O'Hair
wrote:
A revised proposal...
Still called "jdk.release".
But if people really think "jdk.properties" sounds ok, at least the
names
are unique and won't conflict.
http://cr.openjdk.java.n
2.) jre/lib/xxx/jvm.cfg:
- additionally the copyright is out of date in that file on JRE-6_21 and
JDK-6_20, at least for i386.
-Ulf
Am 01.12.2010 02:34, schrieb Kelly O'Hair:
A revised proposal...
Still called "jdk.release".
But if people really think "jdk.properties" sounds ok, at least t
1.) naming:
a: What would be the name for the JRE installation, "jre.release" ?
b: As we have a bin\client\Xusage.txt, we additionally could have:
- bin\usage.txt
- bin\client\XXusage.txt
- bin\Jrocket\XXusage.txt
- etc.
and maybe (without help text, but with well defined syntax):
- bin\options.tx
Kelly O'Hair wrote:
A revised proposal...
Still called "jdk.release".
But if people really think "jdk.properties" sounds ok, at least the
names are unique and won't conflict.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ohair/openjdk7/jdk_release2/webrev/
A Linux 64bit build should result in a jdk.release f
Changeset: fd6873594ae2
Author:ohair
Date: 2010-11-30 17:46 -0800
URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/build/jdk/rev/fd6873594ae2
6987107: Add variable to add to but not modify non-fcs version string
Reviewed-by: jcoomes, dholmes, andrew, kvn
! make/common/shared/Defs.gmk
! make/jp
Kelly O'Hair wrote:
On Nov 30, 2010, at 6:13 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
:
If so, then I would leave out the confusing vendor strings from the
jdk.release file. Because that isn't what people want to know. And might
reintroduce the confusion. The os, arch, version of class library and
runtime is
20 matches
Mail list logo
