Re: Code Review Request - Bug #6948101 & 7142596: RMI JPRT tests are failing

I've modified the implementation: - Use LocateRegistry.createRegistry(0) where possible (it's not possible in all places), rather then creating a ServerSocket, getting the port, then closing it and returning the port number. - Added a TestLibrary.getRegistryPort(Registry) method to get the port

Code Review Request: 7160242: (prefs) Preferences.remove(null) does not throw NPE [macosx]

Hi, This change inserts a null check for the key being passed to Preferences.remove() on Mac, so that the method throws a NullPointerException when key is null (according to its specification). Bug: http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=7160242 Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/

Re: RFR: 7160725 - Strange or obsolete @see tags in some exception java.lang javadoc

On 18/04/2012 20:33, Jim Gish wrote: Description: Another trivial javadoc update - fixed existing @see ref and added a few more representative of the exception usage I think it would be better to just remove the @see java.lang.Thread#setPriority(int) from IllegalArgumentException as it's not

Re: RFR: 7160714 - Strange or obsolete @see tags in some exception java.util javadoc

On 18/04/2012 20:49, Mike Duigou wrote: Looks good with the copyright change. Mike Looks fine to me too.

Re: RFR: 7160725 - Strange or obsolete @see tags in some exception java.lang javadoc

On 19/04/2012 21:49, David Holmes wrote: Hi Jim, On 20/04/2012 12:41 AM, Jim Gish wrote: Hi David, As I discussed with Alan, I don't think the conventions for @see in general are very clear. One could argue that there are a number of approaches that could be taken, among them: an exhaustive

Re: review request: 4244896: (process) Provide System.getPid(), System.killProcess(String pid)

Thanks a lot for the feedback folks. Jason, as Alan notes, that makes a lot of sense. Thanks for that. I'm planning to do the following over the next couple of days: - fix UnixProcess.waitFor(long, TimeUnit) as per David's mail. - alter the default waitFor(long, TimeUnit) comments/implementatio

Re: review request: 4244896: (process) Provide System.getPid(), System.killProcess(String pid)

Please avoid the cross package dependency on j.u.TimeUnit. Keeping mind that in Java ME we have to subset the API to make it fit and that forciblyDestroy is needed iit would be cleaner to avoid the dependency unless there will be a form of the method that uses only a fixed time unit (millisecon

hg: jdk8/tl/corba: 7161925: sjava files in corba don't have copyright string and legal notice

Changeset: 9cdcc0152526 Author:coffeys Date: 2012-04-20 17:34 +0100 URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/corba/rev/9cdcc0152526 7161925: sjava files in corba don't have copyright string and legal notice Reviewed-by: chegar Contributed-by: [email protected] ! src/share/class

Re: review request: 4244896: (process) Provide System.getPid(), System.killProcess(String pid)

On 20/04/2012 02:33, Rob McKenna wrote: I've uploaded another webrev to: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~robm/4244896/webrev.02/ I plan to spend some time over the coming day or two beefing up the test for waitFor (right now its really gear

Re: RFR : 7161925 : sjava files in corba don't have copyright string and legal notice

Clearly, looks fine ;-) -Chris. On 19/04/2012 18:46, Seán Coffey wrote: This is a copyright patch that [email protected] has asked to contribute. I'm pushing it to jdk8 for him. corba repo found to be lacking headers on 2 files. http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=7161925

RE: review request: 4244896: (process) Provide System.getPid(), System.killProcess(String pid)

Rob, > 2) As Alan noted, there is really no need for isAlive() if people are > happy with the idea of waitFor(long, TimeUnit). I'd appreciate any > feedback on this aspect of the fix. Process.isAlive is similar to Future.isDone(). I think isAlive fills that need to have a simple query metho

Re: RFR: 7103570 AtomicIntegerFieldUpdater does not work when SecurityManager is installed

On Apr 20, 2012, at 2:07 AM, David Holmes wrote: > Thanks Paul that was a good set of suggestions. I had overlooked the change > in the exceptions being thrown. > > Updated webrev: > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dholmes/7103570/webrev.01/ > Looks fine to me. > I can't do quite exactly as

Re: review request: 4244896: (process) Provide System.getPid(), System.killProcess(String pid)

Correction: On 20/04/2012 7:15 PM, David Holmes wrote: Rob, You can't use wait this way: 217 public synchronized boolean waitFor(long timeout, TimeUnit unit) 218 throws InterruptedException { 219 long millis = unit.toMillis(timeout); 220 long nanos = unit.toNanos(timeout) % (millis * 100);

Re: review request: 4244896: (process) Provide System.getPid(), System.killProcess(String pid)

Rob, You can't use wait this way: 217 public synchronized boolean waitFor(long timeout, TimeUnit unit) 218 throws InterruptedException { 219 long millis = unit.toMillis(timeout); 220 long nanos = unit.toNanos(timeout) % (millis * 100); 221 222 if (ha

Re: Replace the static error string in ZIP_Put_In_Cache0 with on stack memory

On 04/19/2012 04:05 PM, Sean Chou wrote: Thanks David and Alan, shall I find some one to commit it ? On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 8:53 AM, David Holmeswrote: On 19/04/2012 4:05 AM, Alan Bateman wrote: On 18/04/2012 14:02, David Holmes wrote: On 18/04/2012 10:23 PM, Sean Chou wrote: Hi David,

hg: jdk8/tl/jdk: 7159982: ZipFile uses static for error message when malformed zip file encountered

Changeset: c3905c1f5da7 Author:zhouyx Date: 2012-04-20 16:11 +0800 URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/c3905c1f5da7 7159982: ZipFile uses static for error message when malformed zip file encountered Reviewed-by: alanb, dholmes ! src/share/native/java/util/zip/ZipFile.c