Re: RFR: 8260555: Change the default TIMEOUT_FACTOR from 4 to 1 [v4]

2025-08-18 Thread Daniel Fuchs
On Mon, 18 Aug 2025 16:34:21 GMT, Leo Korinth wrote: >> This changes the timeout factor from 4 to 1. Most of the changes add >> timeouts to individual test cases so that I am able to run them with a >> timeout factor of 0.7 (some margin to the checked in factor of one) >> >> In addition to cha

Re: RFR: 8260555: Change the default TIMEOUT_FACTOR from 4 to 1 [v3]

2025-08-18 Thread Daniel Fuchs
On Fri, 15 Aug 2025 11:43:33 GMT, Leo Korinth wrote: >> This changes the timeout factor from 4 to 1. Most of the changes add >> timeouts to individual test cases so that I am able to run them with a >> timeout factor of 0.7 (some margin to the checked in factor of one) >> >> In addition to cha

Re: RFR: 8358731: Remove jdk.internal.access.JavaAWTAccess.java

2025-06-06 Thread Daniel Fuchs
On Fri, 6 Jun 2025 18:35:53 GMT, Phil Race wrote: > The fix for JDK-8344235: Revisit SecurityManager usage in java.logging after > JEP 486 and JEP 491 integration > removed use of AppContext from java/util/logging/LogManager.java. > That was the only place in the JDK that used > jdk.internal.ac

Re: RFR: 8356644: Update encoding declaration to UTF-8

2025-05-09 Thread Daniel Fuchs
On Fri, 9 May 2025 14:14:57 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: > A handful of html and xml files in the JDK source tree claims to have > encodings like `ISO-8859-1`, when they are in fact pure US-ASCII files. > > While perhaps technically correct, this is misleading, and goes contrary to > the eff

Re: RFR: 8356171: Increase timeout for testcases as preparation for change of default timeout factor

2025-05-09 Thread Daniel Fuchs
On Fri, 9 May 2025 08:40:44 GMT, Leo Korinth wrote: > The whole idea of running with a timeout factor of `0.7` is to remove > intermittent failures. (I had it close to 0.5 or maybe less to begin with > until I found and reported CODETOOLS-7903937: JTREG uses timeout factor on > socket timeout

Re: RFR: 8356171: Increase timeout for testcases as preparation for change of default timeout factor

2025-05-09 Thread Daniel Fuchs
On Thu, 8 May 2025 17:41:02 GMT, Daniel Fuchs wrote: > Thank you. I have imported your PR locally and running some HTTP client tests > in the CI. > Tests have not finished running - but I already see one intermittent failure: > `java/net/httpclient/RedirectTimeoutTest.java` i

Re: RFR: 8356171: Increase timeout for testcases as preparation for change of default timeout factor

2025-05-08 Thread Daniel Fuchs
On Thu, 8 May 2025 14:51:24 GMT, Leo Korinth wrote: > This change tries to add timeout to individual testcases so that I am able to > run them with a timeout factor of 1 in the future (JDK-8260555). > > The first commit changes the timeout factor to 0.7, so that I can run tests > and test the

Re: RFR: 8356171: Increase timeout for testcases as preparation for change of default timeout factor

2025-05-08 Thread Daniel Fuchs
On Thu, 8 May 2025 14:51:24 GMT, Leo Korinth wrote: > This change tries to add timeout to individual testcases so that I am able to > run them with a timeout factor of 1 in the future (JDK-8260555). > > The first commit changes the timeout factor to 0.7, so that I can run tests > and test the

Re: Integrated: Merge ed30fce6df57b1cbf7a6efebabc3558550f8ec16

2025-04-16 Thread Daniel Fuchs
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 11:20:36 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote: > This brings in the CPU25_04 changes into the master branch. LGTM - Marked as reviewed by dfuchs (Reviewer). PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/24683#pullrequestreview-2772164693

Re: Integrated: Merge 5f6c85420a19d5dd9ccaf0a0c6e8f6502fab2aa7

2025-01-22 Thread Daniel Fuchs
On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 11:22:49 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote: > This brings in CPU25_01 changes into master branch. Marked as reviewed by dfuchs (Reviewer). - PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23231#pullrequestreview-2566935776

Re: [jdk24] Integrated: Merge 93ea8e708d5fc3dfe01de8d5b6d1061fef91b5d4

2025-01-22 Thread Daniel Fuchs
On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 11:22:53 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote: > This brings in CPU25_01 changes into jdk24 branch. Marked as reviewed by dfuchs (Reviewer). - PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23232#pullrequestreview-2566937917

Re: RFR: 8345799: Update copyright year to 2024 for core-libs in files where it was missed [v2]

2024-12-09 Thread Daniel Fuchs
On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 13:03:06 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: >> Some files have been modified in 2024, but the copyright year has not been >> properly updated. This should be fixed. >> >> I have located these modified files using: >> >> git log --since="Jan 1" --name-only --pretty=format: | sor

Re: RFR: JDK-8344303 : Remove usage of URLUtil.getConnectPermission from sun.awt.SunToolkit and sun.awt.image.URLImageSource [v2]

2024-11-22 Thread Daniel Fuchs
On Fri, 22 Nov 2024 20:00:14 GMT, Alexander Zvegintsev wrote: >>> so the jdk/src/java.base/share/classes/sun/net/util/URLUtil.java part can >>> be reverted >> >> true >> >>> will changes to java.base files - URLUtil.java be handled in >>> [JDK-8344180](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-834

Re: RFR: 8344056: Use markdown format for man pages

2024-11-14 Thread Daniel Fuchs
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 17:05:25 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: > Currently, the man pages are stored as troff (a text format) in the open > repo, and a content-wise identical copy is stored as markdown (another text > format) in the closed repo. > > Since markdown is preferred to troff in terms o

Re: RFR: 8338411: Implement JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security Manager [v6]

2024-11-03 Thread Daniel Fuchs
On Sat, 2 Nov 2024 22:25:06 GMT, ExE Boss wrote: >> Sean Mullan has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a >> merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 200 commits: >> >> - Merge remote-tracking branch 'jdk-sandbox/jep486' into JDK-8338411 >> - Modify three RMI tests

Re: RFR: 8338411: Implement JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security Manager [v5]

2024-10-29 Thread Daniel Fuchs
On Tue, 29 Oct 2024 12:40:59 GMT, Sean Mullan wrote: >> This is the implementation of JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security >> Manager. See [JEP 486](https://openjdk.org/jeps/486) for more details. The >> [CSR](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8338412) describes in detail the >> main ch

Re: RFR: 8338411: Implement JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security Manager [v5]

2024-10-29 Thread Daniel Fuchs
On Tue, 29 Oct 2024 12:40:59 GMT, Sean Mullan wrote: >> This is the implementation of JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security >> Manager. See [JEP 486](https://openjdk.org/jeps/486) for more details. The >> [CSR](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8338412) describes in detail the >> main ch

Re: RFR: 8338411: Implement JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security Manager [v5]

2024-10-29 Thread Daniel Fuchs
On Tue, 29 Oct 2024 12:40:59 GMT, Sean Mullan wrote: >> This is the implementation of JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security >> Manager. See [JEP 486](https://openjdk.org/jeps/486) for more details. The >> [CSR](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8338412) describes in detail the >> main ch

Re: RFR: 8338411: Implement JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security Manager [v5]

2024-10-29 Thread Daniel Fuchs
On Tue, 29 Oct 2024 12:40:59 GMT, Sean Mullan wrote: >> This is the implementation of JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security >> Manager. See [JEP 486](https://openjdk.org/jeps/486) for more details. The >> [CSR](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8338412) describes in detail the >> main ch

Re: RFR: 8338411: Implement JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security Manager [v3]

2024-10-25 Thread Daniel Fuchs
On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 13:19:55 GMT, Sean Mullan wrote: >> This is the implementation of JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security >> Manager. See [JEP 486](https://openjdk.org/jeps/486) for more details. The >> [CSR](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8338412) describes in detail the >> main ch

Re: RFR: 8338411: Implement JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security Manager [v2]

2024-10-23 Thread Daniel Fuchs
On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 11:54:39 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote: >> Sean Mullan has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a >> merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 97 commits: >> >> - Merge remote-tracking branch 'jdk-sandbox/jep486' into JDK-8338411 >> - Change apiNote to d

Re: RFR: 8338411: Implement JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security Manager [v2]

2024-10-22 Thread Daniel Fuchs
On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 11:50:13 GMT, Michael McMahon wrote: >> Sean Mullan has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a >> merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 97 commits: >> >> - Merge remote-tracking branch 'jdk-sandbox/jep486' into JDK-8338411 >> - Change apiNote t

Re: RFR: 8338411: Implement JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security Manager [v2]

2024-10-21 Thread Daniel Fuchs
On Fri, 18 Oct 2024 19:03:30 GMT, Sean Mullan wrote: >> This is the implementation of JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security >> Manager. See [JEP 486](https://openjdk.org/jeps/486) for more details. The >> [CSR](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8338412) describes in detail the >> main ch

Re: RFR: 8338411: Implement JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security Manager [v2]

2024-10-21 Thread Daniel Fuchs
On Fri, 18 Oct 2024 19:03:30 GMT, Sean Mullan wrote: >> This is the implementation of JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security >> Manager. See [JEP 486](https://openjdk.org/jeps/486) for more details. The >> [CSR](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8338412) describes in detail the >> main ch

Re: RFR: 8338411: Implement JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security Manager

2024-10-15 Thread Daniel Fuchs
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 16:34:40 GMT, Severin Gehwolf wrote: >> This is the implementation of JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security >> Manager. See [JEP 486](https://openjdk.org/jeps/486) for more details. The >> [CSR](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8338412) describes in detail the >> mai

Re: RFR: 8338411: Implement JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security Manager

2024-10-15 Thread Daniel Fuchs
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 15:21:32 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote: >> src/java.logging/share/classes/java/util/logging/LogManager.java line 2430: >> >>> 2428: @Deprecated(since="17", forRemoval=true) >>> 2429: public void checkAccess() { >>> 2430: throw new SecurityException(); >> >> Though

Re: RFR: 8338411: Implement JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security Manager

2024-10-15 Thread Daniel Fuchs
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 13:52:24 GMT, Sean Mullan wrote: > This is the implementation of JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security > Manager. See [JEP 486](https://openjdk.org/jeps/486) for more details. The > [CSR](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8338412) describes in detail the > main change

Re: RFR: 8331671: Implement JEP 472: Prepare to Restrict the Use of JNI [v3]

2024-05-13 Thread Daniel Fuchs
On Mon, 13 May 2024 11:47:38 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore wrote: >> This PR implements [JEP 472](https://openjdk.org/jeps/472), by restricting >> the use of JNI in the following ways: >> >> * `System::load` and `System::loadLibrary` are now restricted methods >> * `Runtime::load` and `Runtime::loa

Re: RFR: 8330178: Clean up non-standard use of /** comments in `java.base`

2024-04-19 Thread Daniel Fuchs
On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 20:44:00 GMT, Jonathan Gibbons wrote: > Please review a set of updates to clean up use of `/**` comments in the > vicinity of declarations. > > There are various categories of update: > > * "Box comments" beginning with `/**` > * Misplaced doc comments before package or imp

Re: RFR: 8325558: Add jcheck whitespace checking for properties files

2024-02-12 Thread Daniel Fuchs
On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 13:35:55 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: > This is an attempt to finally implement the idea brought forward in > JDK-8295729: Properties files is essentially source code. It should have the > same whitespace checks as all other source code, so we don't get spurious > trailin

Re: RFR: 8325558: Add jcheck whitespace checking for properties files

2024-02-09 Thread Daniel Fuchs
On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 13:35:55 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: > This is an attempt to finally implement the idea brought forward in > JDK-8295729: Properties files is essentially source code. It should have the > same whitespace checks as all other source code, so we don't get spurious > trailin

Re: RFR: 8325109: Sort method modifiers in canonical order

2024-02-01 Thread Daniel Fuchs
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 11:57:04 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: > This is a follow-up on > [JDK-8324053](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8324053). I have run the > bin/blessed-modifier-order.sh on the entire code base, and manually checked > the result. I have reverted all but these trivial and

Re: RFR: 8267174: Many test files have the wrong Copyright header

2023-09-06 Thread Daniel Fuchs
On Tue, 5 Sep 2023 22:49:41 GMT, Erik Joelsson wrote: > There are a number of files in the `test` directory that have an incorrect > copyright header, which includes the "classpath" exception text. This patch > removes that text from all test files that I could find it in. I did this > using a

Re: RFR: 8285368: Overhaul doc-comment inheritance [v5]

2023-06-08 Thread Daniel Fuchs
On Thu, 8 Jun 2023 09:26:16 GMT, Pavel Rappo wrote: >> Please review this long-awaited change to documentation inheritance. >> >> This change improves "methods comment algorithm" and introduces directed >> documentation inheritance. While "methods comment algorithm" -- automatic >> search for

Re: [jdk20] RFR: 8298133: JDK 20 RDP1 L10n resource files update - msgdrop 10 [v5]

2022-12-16 Thread Daniel Fuchs
On Fri, 16 Dec 2022 09:20:07 GMT, Daniel Fuchs wrote: >> Damon Nguyen has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional >> commit since the last revision: >> >> Revert old translation. Fix lang codes > > src/java.base/share/classes/sun/launcher/re

Re: [jdk20] RFR: 8298133: JDK 20 RDP1 L10n resource files update - msgdrop 10 [v5]

2022-12-16 Thread Daniel Fuchs
On Fri, 16 Dec 2022 03:38:54 GMT, Damon Nguyen wrote: >> Open l10n drop >> All tests passed > > Damon Nguyen has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional > commit since the last revision: > > Revert old translation. Fix lang codes src/java.base/share/classes/sun/launcher/re

Re: RFR: 8296546: Add @spec tags to API [v4]

2022-12-02 Thread Daniel Fuchs
On Thu, 1 Dec 2022 19:36:16 GMT, Jonathan Gibbons wrote: >> Please review a "somewhat automated" change to insert `@spec` tags into doc >> comments, as appropriate, to leverage the recent new javadoc feature to >> generate a new page listing the references to all external specifications >> lis

Re: RFR: 8296546: Add @spec tags to API [v3]

2022-11-23 Thread Daniel Fuchs
On Wed, 23 Nov 2022 18:57:03 GMT, Jonathan Gibbons wrote: >> Please review a "somewhat automated" change to insert `@spec` tags into doc >> comments, as appropriate, to leverage the recent new javadoc feature to >> generate a new page listing the references to all external specifications >> li

Re: RFR: 8297507: Update header after JDK-8297230 [v2]

2022-11-23 Thread Daniel Fuchs
On Wed, 23 Nov 2022 14:51:08 GMT, Jayathirth D V wrote: >> Update header to add extra space > > Jayathirth D V has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional > commit since the last revision: > > Update header to include extra space Marked as reviewed by dfuchs (Reviewer). -

Re: RFR: 8296546: Add @spec tags to API [v2]

2022-11-23 Thread Daniel Fuchs
On Tue, 22 Nov 2022 22:04:57 GMT, Jonathan Gibbons wrote: >> Please review a "somewhat automated" change to insert `@spec` tags into doc >> comments, as appropriate, to leverage the recent new javadoc feature to >> generate a new page listing the references to all external specifications >> li

Re: RFR: 8296546: Add @spec tags to API

2022-11-11 Thread Daniel Fuchs
On Fri, 11 Nov 2022 11:45:43 GMT, Lance Andersen wrote: > It would probably be easier for the reviewers and for you if the PR could be > broken out by areas into separate PRs Leaving out the non-public and non-exported classes would also reduce the PR size. - PR: https://git.open

Re: RFR: 8296546: Add @spec tags to API

2022-11-11 Thread Daniel Fuchs
On Thu, 10 Nov 2022 21:56:26 GMT, Jonathan Gibbons wrote: > On the same text but linking to different RFCs: that's tantamount to a bug > somewhere. The spec for `@spec` dictates that the URLs and titles should be > in 1-1 correspondence, and this is supposed to be enforced in the docket. In >

Re: RFR: JDK-8296547: Add @spec tags to API

2022-11-10 Thread Daniel Fuchs
On Thu, 10 Nov 2022 01:10:13 GMT, Jonathan Gibbons wrote: > Please review a "somewhat automated" change to insert `@spec` tags into doc > comments, as appropriate, to leverage the recent new javadoc feature to > generate a new page listing the references to all external specifications > listed

Integrated: 8294241: Deprecate URL public constructors

2022-11-03 Thread Daniel Fuchs
On Wed, 26 Oct 2022 16:00:56 GMT, Daniel Fuchs wrote: > Deprecate URL constructors. Developers are encouraged to use `java.net.URI` > to parse or construct any URL. > > The `java.net.URL` class does not itself encode or decode any URL components > according to the escaping me

Re: RFR: 8294241: Deprecate URL public constructors [v5]

2022-11-03 Thread Daniel Fuchs
Some related > issues will be logged to revisit the calling code. > > The CSR can be reviewed here: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8295949 Daniel Fuchs has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated chan

Re: RFR: 8294241: Deprecate URL public constructors [v3]

2022-11-03 Thread Daniel Fuchs
On Thu, 3 Nov 2022 07:42:44 GMT, ExE Boss wrote: >> Daniel Fuchs has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a >> merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes >> brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains six addi

Re: RFR: 8294241: Deprecate URL public constructors [v4]

2022-11-03 Thread Daniel Fuchs
On Thu, 3 Nov 2022 10:56:28 GMT, Michael McMahon wrote: >> Daniel Fuchs has updated the pull request incrementally with three >> additional commits since the last revision: >> >> - Update src/java.base/share/classes/java/net/URL.java >> >>Co-

Re: RFR: 8294241: Deprecate URL public constructors [v4]

2022-11-03 Thread Daniel Fuchs
Some related > issues will be logged to revisit the calling code. > > The CSR can be reviewed here: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8295949 Daniel Fuchs has updated the pull request incrementally with three additional commits since the last revision: - Update src/java.base/share/classe

Re: RFR: 8294241: Deprecate URL public constructors [v2]

2022-11-01 Thread Daniel Fuchs
On Tue, 1 Nov 2022 14:47:49 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote: >> Actually... Maybe I could move up the paragraph that says that URL >> constructors are deprecated up here, just after the

title? Would >> that be better? > > Try it, it might be better. I think the main thing is that link brings the


Re: RFR: 8294241: Deprecate URL public constructors [v3]

2022-11-01 Thread Daniel Fuchs
Some related > issues will be logged to revisit the calling code. > > The CSR can be reviewed here: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8295949 Daniel Fuchs has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated chang

Re: RFR: 8294241: Deprecate URL public constructors [v2]

2022-11-01 Thread Daniel Fuchs
On Tue, 1 Nov 2022 14:10:01 GMT, Daniel Fuchs wrote: >> src/java.base/share/classes/java/net/URL.java line 133: >> >>> 131: * specified. The optional fragment is not inherited. >>> 132: * >>> 133: * Constructing instances of >>> {@code URL}

Re: RFR: 8294241: Deprecate URL public constructors [v2]

2022-11-01 Thread Daniel Fuchs
On Sat, 29 Oct 2022 14:24:09 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote: >> Daniel Fuchs has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a >> merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes >> brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contai

Re: RFR: 8294241: Deprecate URL public constructors [v2]

2022-11-01 Thread Daniel Fuchs
On Sat, 29 Oct 2022 14:17:12 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote: >> Daniel Fuchs has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a >> merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes >> brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contai

Re: RFR: 8294241: Deprecate URL public constructors [v2]

2022-11-01 Thread Daniel Fuchs
On Sat, 29 Oct 2022 14:16:24 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote: >> Daniel Fuchs has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a >> merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes >> brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contai

Re: RFR: 8294241: Deprecate URL public constructors [v2]

2022-11-01 Thread Daniel Fuchs
On Sat, 29 Oct 2022 14:14:22 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote: >> Daniel Fuchs has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a >> merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes >> brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contai

Re: RFR: 8294241: Deprecate URL public constructors [v2]

2022-11-01 Thread Daniel Fuchs
On Mon, 31 Oct 2022 22:00:01 GMT, Phil Race wrote: > Deprecate URL constructors. Developers are encouraged to use java.net.URI to > parse or construct any URL. ... To construct a URL, using URI::toURL should > be preferred. > > You have jumped through some refactoring hoops to be able to apply

Re: RFR: 8295729: Add jcheck whitespace checking for properties files [v3]

2022-11-01 Thread Daniel Fuchs
On Mon, 24 Oct 2022 19:21:07 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: >> Properties files is essentially source code. It should have the same >> whitespace checks as all other source code, so we don't get spurious >> trailing whitespace changes. >> >> With the new Skara jcheck, it is possible to increas

Re: RFR: 8294241: Deprecate URL public constructors [v2]

2022-10-28 Thread Daniel Fuchs
Some related > issues will be logged to revisit the calling code. > > The CSR can be reviewed here: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8295949 Daniel Fuchs has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated change

Re: RFR: 8294241: Deprecate URL public constructors

2022-10-27 Thread Daniel Fuchs
On Thu, 27 Oct 2022 17:50:37 GMT, Andrey Turbanov wrote: >> Deprecate URL constructors. Developers are encouraged to use `java.net.URI` >> to parse or construct any URL. >> >> The `java.net.URL` class does not itself encode or decode any URL components >> according to the escaping mechanism de

Re: RFR: 8294241: Deprecate URL public constructors

2022-10-27 Thread Daniel Fuchs
On Thu, 27 Oct 2022 17:20:04 GMT, Joe Wang wrote: > Hi Daniel, if it's not a major improvement, we'd like to keep the java.xml > module at the JDK 8 code level. Can we remove the 'var' usage in a few > java.xml classes? No problem - I will make this change when we have settled on a name for th

Re: RFR: 8294241: Deprecate URL public constructors

2022-10-27 Thread Daniel Fuchs
On Thu, 27 Oct 2022 09:17:29 GMT, Michael McMahon wrote: >> Having unnamed local variables[^1] would probably be best for this. >> >> [^1]: https://openjdk.org/jeps/8294349 > > How about `_unused` or `_unused1`, `_unused2` then in the meantime? I'd be happy to make the change. Let's wait to see

Re: RFR: 8294241: Deprecate URL public constructors

2022-10-26 Thread Daniel Fuchs
On Wed, 26 Oct 2022 17:39:56 GMT, Xue-Lei Andrew Fan wrote: >> `URLStreamHandler` really belongs to `java.net.URL`, and is an >> implementation detail of the infrastructure/SPI that makes it possible to >> eventually call `URL::openConnection`. I do not think it would be >> appropriate to have

Re: RFR: 8294241: Deprecate URL public constructors

2022-10-26 Thread Daniel Fuchs
On Wed, 26 Oct 2022 17:09:20 GMT, Xue-Lei Andrew Fan wrote: >> Deprecate URL constructors. Developers are encouraged to use `java.net.URI` >> to parse or construct any URL. >> >> The `java.net.URL` class does not itself encode or decode any URL components >> according to the escaping mechanism

RFR: 8294241: Deprecate URL public constructors

2022-10-26 Thread Daniel Fuchs
Deprecate URL constructors. Developers are encouraged to use `java.net.URI` to parse or construct any URL. The `java.net.URL` class does not itself encode or decode any URL components according to the escaping mechanism defined in RFC2396. It is the responsibility of the caller to encode any fi

Re: RFR: 8294456: Fix misleading-indentation warnings in JDK

2022-09-29 Thread Daniel Fuchs
On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 13:44:40 GMT, Raffaello Giulietti wrote: >> src/java.base/share/native/libfdlibm/e_asin.c line 102: >> >>> 100: } else >>> 101: t = x*x; >>> 102: p = t*(pS0+t*(pS1+t*(pS2+t*(pS3+t*(pS4+t*pS5); >> >> should we add an opening brace

Re: RFR: 8294456: Fix misleading-indentation warnings in JDK

2022-09-29 Thread Daniel Fuchs
On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 13:11:03 GMT, Raffaello Giulietti wrote: > This fixes misleading indentations, which allows enabling the (currently > disabled) `misleading-indentation` warning flag on two `.gmk` files. src/java.base/share/native/libfdlibm/e_asin.c line 102: > 100: } else > 10

Re: RFR: 8294321: Fix typos in files under test/jdk/java, test/jdk/jdk, test/jdk/jni [v2]

2022-09-28 Thread Daniel Fuchs
On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 14:45:54 GMT, Michael Ernst wrote: >> Michael Ernst has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a >> merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains six commits: >> >> - Reinstate typos in Apache code that is copied into the JDK >> - Merge ../jdk-openjdk in

Re: RFR: 8294377: Prepare to stop auto-inheriting documentation for subclasses of exceptions whose documentation is inherited [v2]

2022-09-28 Thread Daniel Fuchs
On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 12:14:23 GMT, Pavel Rappo wrote: >> This adds exception documentation to JDK methods that would otherwise lose >> that documentation once JDK-8287796 is integrated. While adding this >> exception documentation now does not change [^1] the JDK API Documentation, >> it will a

Re: RFR: 8294321: Fix typos in files under test/jdk/java, test/jdk/jdk, test/jdk/jni [v2]

2022-09-28 Thread Daniel Fuchs
On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 23:12:43 GMT, Michael Ernst wrote: > Feel free to break up the pull request if that is what is needed to free it > from red tape. Only you can do that @mernst - PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/10029