I skimmed it and looks okay to me. Thanks for separating this build work and
avoid interfering the jimage refresh work.
Mandy
On Jun 15, 2015, at 4:58 PM, Valerie Peng valerie.p...@oracle.com wrote:
It seems that the jimage refresh change may still take some time, so we will
end up
It seems that the jimage refresh change may still take some time, so we
will end up removing the makefile related changes and then deferring the
ServiceLoader related changes to Jake workspace.
Here is the latest webrev (Security source/test changes only, no more
makefile changes)
What is the bug id for the image refresh change? Just so I can keep a
watch and hold my changes for the time being.
My webrev has a new regression test which compares the list of providers
found by ServiceLoader and Security.getProviders() call. So, if the
JDK-8066492
Mandy
On 06/08/2015 04:44 PM, Valerie Peng wrote:
What is the bug id for the image refresh change? Just so I can keep a
watch and hold my changes for the time being.
My webrev has a new regression test which compares the list of
providers found by ServiceLoader and
Hello Valerie,
The merging seems ok, but I thought there was non determinism in the
image builder regarding which provider would get picked up. Is that
resolved or do you really need to override all of those providers with
your generated file in gensrc? I can assist in writing that makefile
On Jun 5, 2015, at 4:32 PM, Valerie Peng valerie.p...@oracle.com wrote:
I don't know image builder well enough to answer your question.
The current implementation of the image builder sorts the modules by their name
that are mapped to the same class loader. That explains why java.naming
Build experts,
Can you please review the make file related change, i.e. the new file
make/gensrc/Gensrc-java.naming.gmk, in the following webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~valeriep/7191662/webrev.03
This is for merging the java.security.Provider file from various
providers and use the
Correct, if the makefile related changes are removed then no need for
build team to review 7191662 webrev anymore.
There are other discussions ongoing and we should be able to reach a
decision in a day or two.
Will update the list again.
Thanks,
Valerie
On 06/01/15 16:39, Magnus Ihse Bursie
Please find comments in line...
On 5/27/2015 3:42 PM, Mandy Chung wrote:
Valerie,
Did you see my comment yesterday?
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/security-dev/2015-May/012254.html
Yes, we exchanged emails after this above one. I will follow up your
latest one later today.
On 27/05/2015 23:42, Mandy Chung wrote:
Valerie,
Did you see my comment yesterday?
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/security-dev/2015-May/012254.html
Since you have reverted the java.security to keep the classname, to avoid
causing merge conflict to jimage refresh, let’s remove the
Valerie,
Did you see my comment yesterday?
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/security-dev/2015-May/012254.html
Since you have reverted the java.security to keep the classname, to avoid
causing merge conflict to jimage refresh, let’s remove the META-INF files in
the first push and the
Hi, build experts,
Can you please review the make file related change, i.e. the new file ||
*make/gensrc/Gensrc-java.naming.gmk*, in the following webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~valeriep/7191662/webrev.01/
This is for merging the java.security.Provider file from various
providers and
On 2015-05-22 18:53, Mandy Chung wrote:
On 05/22/2015 08:09 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 22/05/2015 13:55, Chris Hegarty wrote:
:
I think it could be done either way.
Valerie - have you considered not pushing the services configuration
files with this change? With the change then the
On 25/05/15 09:42, Erik Joelsson wrote:
On 2015-05-22 18:53, Mandy Chung wrote:
On 05/22/2015 08:09 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 22/05/2015 13:55, Chris Hegarty wrote:
:
I think it could be done either way.
Valerie - have you considered not pushing the services configuration
files with
On 25/05/2015 09:53, Chris Hegarty wrote:
If it is agreed that these files are needed, then I can look at
expanding the ImageBuilder to do concatenate them.
I agree with Mandy's point that java.security should be change to list
the provider name rather than the class name. If that happens
On May 25, 2015, at 3:00 AM, Alan Bateman alan.bate...@oracle.com wrote:
On 25/05/2015 09:53, Chris Hegarty wrote:
If it is agreed that these files are needed, then I can look at expanding
the ImageBuilder to do concatenate them.
I agree with Mandy's point that java.security should be
On 2015-05-22 02:46, Mandy Chung wrote:
I’m including build-dev and we need to ask for Erik and Magnus advice what’s
the best way to work around this.
Erik, Magnus,
Security providers now become service providers. They are provided from 11
different modules, 3 of them are os-specific.
On 22/05/15 07:58, Erik Joelsson wrote:
On 2015-05-22 02:46, Mandy Chung wrote:
I’m including build-dev and we need to ask for Erik and Magnus advice
what’s the best way to work around this.
Erik, Magnus,
Security providers now become service providers. They are
provided from 11
On 22/05/2015 13:55, Chris Hegarty wrote:
:
I think it could be done either way.
Valerie - have you considered not pushing the services configuration
files with this change? With the change then the java.security
configuration is still class names, not provider names, so the fallback
On 05/22/2015 08:09 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 22/05/2015 13:55, Chris Hegarty wrote:
:
I think it could be done either way.
Valerie - have you considered not pushing the services configuration
files with this change? With the change then the java.security
configuration is still class
I’m including build-dev and we need to ask for Erik and Magnus advice what’s
the best way to work around this.
Erik, Magnus,
Security providers now become service providers. They are provided from 11
different modules, 3 of them are os-specific. The current image builder
doesn’t merge
21 matches
Mail list logo
