On 27 Apr 2016, at 20:13, Alan Bateman wrote:
> On 27/04/2016 10:04, Chris Hegarty wrote:
>> On 26 Apr 2016, at 18:21, Alan Bateman wrote:
>>
>>> I took a second pass over it. One thing that I'm wondering about is whether
>>> BaseExtendedSocketOptions + Support should be collapsed into one abs
On 27/04/2016 10:04, Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 26 Apr 2016, at 18:21, Alan Bateman wrote:
I took a second pass over it. One thing that I'm wondering about is whether
BaseExtendedSocketOptions + Support should be collapsed into one abstract class
ExtendedSocketOptions (or better name) with 3
> On Apr 27, 2016, at 11:16 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
>
>
> On 27 Apr 2016, at 17:27, Mandy Chung wrote:
>
>>
>>> On Apr 27, 2016, at 2:04 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
>>>
>>> This works out quite nice. Webrev updated in-place:
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~chegar/8044773/jdk/
>>
>> One com
On 27 Apr 2016, at 17:27, Mandy Chung wrote:
>
>> On Apr 27, 2016, at 2:04 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
>>
>> This works out quite nice. Webrev updated in-place:
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~chegar/8044773/jdk/
>
> One comment on the qualified exports of sun.security.action.GetPropertyAction
Why is this still an issue???
The fix is stupid simple:
diff --git a/src/java.desktop/macosx/native/libosxapp/NSApplicationAWT.m
b/src/java.desktop/macosx/native/libosxapp/NSApplicationAWT.m
--- a/src/java.desktop/macosx/native/libosxapp/NSApplicationAWT.m
+++ b/src/java.desktop/macosx/native/l
> On Apr 27, 2016, at 2:04 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
>
> This works out quite nice. Webrev updated in-place:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~chegar/8044773/jdk/
One comment on the qualified exports of sun.security.action.GetPropertyAction
to jdk.net module. This is a simple utility method used
On 26 Apr 2016, at 18:21, Alan Bateman wrote:
> I took a second pass over it. One thing that I'm wondering about is whether
> BaseExtendedSocketOptions + Support should be collapsed into one abstract
> class ExtendedSocketOptions (or better name) with 3 instance methods and 2
> static methods