On 8/29/2012 7:07 PM, Stuart Marks wrote:
On 8/29/12 4:56 PM, Joe Darcy wrote:
On 8/29/2012 4:20 PM, Stuart Marks wrote:
The original code was like this:
427 private static int getMask(String actions) {
...
435 // Check against use of constants (used heavily within
Hi Stuart,
On 30/08/2012 8:53 AM, Stuart Marks wrote:
On 8/29/12 8:48 AM, Andrew Hughes wrote:
But presumably [-Werror] would be removed when everything is warning
free?
-Werror should not be the default for everyone building OpenJDK, who then
end up having to fix or workaround issues which are
On 8/29/12 4:56 PM, Joe Darcy wrote:
On 8/29/2012 4:20 PM, Stuart Marks wrote:
The original code was like this:
427 private static int getMask(String actions) {
...
435 // Check against use of constants (used heavily within the JDK)
436 if (actions == Secur
Hi Alan,
I'm opening another front in the war against test failures. Please review these
additions to the problem list.
Thanks.
s'marks
diff -r c4c69b4d9ace test/ProblemList.txt
--- a/test/ProblemList.txt Wed Aug 29 11:03:02 2012 +0800
+++ b/test/ProblemList.txt Wed Aug 29 19:00:5
On 8/29/2012 4:20 PM, Stuart Marks wrote:
On 8/29/12 4:36 AM, Ulf Zibis wrote:
436 switch (actions) {
437 case SecurityConstants.FILE_READ_ACTION:
438 return READ;
Oops, you have reverted the change to use switch-on-Strings by
webrev.03. Why?
A fair qu
On 08/29/2012 12:11 PM, Dan Xu wrote:
On 08/29/2012 08:27 AM, Joe Darcy wrote:
Hello,
On 8/29/2012 1:48 AM, Rémi Forax wrote:
On 08/29/2012 08:33 AM, Kurchi Subhra Hazra wrote:
Thanks for cleaning up those spaces Dan. The changes look fine.
Sorry for the extra trouble!
- Kurchi
On 8/28/12
Paul, Alan,
Confusion was what jaxp meant to give :) I was told that the
factory/object finders, security support classes were duplicated, and
needed to be kept in sync. But they are not even in their original
form, unfortunately.
Both of you mentioned that it's desirable to make SCE the
On 8/29/12 4:36 AM, Ulf Zibis wrote:
436 switch (actions) {
437 case SecurityConstants.FILE_READ_ACTION:
438 return READ;
Oops, you have reverted the change to use switch-on-Strings by webrev.03. Why?
A fair question. I had instigated some internal conve
I actually updated the webrev yesterday with your suggestion.
Recall our discussions back in June, the suggestion was to delegate to
the ServiceLoader, e.g. ServiceLoader.load(serviceClass). The rational
was that the ServiceLoader uses context and then bootstrap class loader.
The spec for pub
On 8/29/12 3:50 AM, Ulf Zibis wrote:
In FilePermission.java file, I make one change to its method
signature,
public Enumeration elements() ==> public Enumeration
elements()
Actually the whole method is synchronized. To make this more clear, I suggest:
798 public synchronized E
On 8/29/12 8:48 AM, Andrew Hughes wrote:
But presumably [-Werror] would be removed when everything is warning free?
-Werror should not be the default for everyone building OpenJDK, who then
end up having to fix or workaround issues which are nothing to do with them.
It's easy enough for those w
Thanks for your comments. I have updated my fix and posted at,
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dxu/7193710/webrev.01/.
I think the effort to upgrade to use new tags is out of the scope of
this fix and will be addressed against the whole JDK in one chunk later.
-Dan
On 08/28/2012 05:13 PM, Dan X
On 08/29/2012 08:27 AM, Joe Darcy wrote:
Hello,
On 8/29/2012 1:48 AM, Rémi Forax wrote:
On 08/29/2012 08:33 AM, Kurchi Subhra Hazra wrote:
Thanks for cleaning up those spaces Dan. The changes look fine.
Sorry for the extra trouble!
- Kurchi
On 8/28/12 10:22 PM, Dan Xu wrote:
It is funny. :)
This looks fine.
Dan, I will commit this for you Thursday
Best
Lance
On Aug 29, 2012, at 1:29 AM, Dan Xu wrote:
> I made a simple fix to clean up build warnings in java.sql package. The
> change can be reviewed at http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dxu/7193683/webrev.01/.
> Thanks!
>
> -Dan
Lance
On Aug 29, 2012, at 10:56 AM, Paul Sandoz wrote:
> Hi Joe,
>
> I would urge you to reconsider errors using SL, since SL is being explicitly
> called out as part of the specification.
>
> You can make any such SL-related errors more meaningful (yes, i want the
> stack trace telling what bits
- Original Message -
> On 8/24/12 2:42 AM, Andrew Hughes wrote:
> > However, once the whole build is warning free, would it not be
> > preferable
> > to remove these and just set JAVAC_WARNINGS_FATAL=true when doing
> > development
> > builds?
> >
> > The problem I see is someone new comi
Hello,
On 8/29/2012 1:48 AM, Rémi Forax wrote:
On 08/29/2012 08:33 AM, Kurchi Subhra Hazra wrote:
Thanks for cleaning up those spaces Dan. The changes look fine.
Sorry for the extra trouble!
- Kurchi
On 8/28/12 10:22 PM, Dan Xu wrote:
It is funny. :) I have searched all source codes under jdk
Am 29.08.2012 07:22, schrieb Dan Xu:
It is funny. :) I have searched all source codes under jdk and removed spaces
for the similar cases.
Please review the new version of change at,
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dxu/7193406/webrev.03/.
Thanks for your comment!
In class j.u.Collections you hav
Am 24.08.2012 21:07, schrieb Dan Xu:
On 08/23/2012 06:53 PM, David Holmes wrote:
I'm surprised that you need this:
426 @SuppressWarnings("fallthrough")
...
436 switch (actions) {
437 case SecurityConstants.FILE_READ_ACTION:
438 return READ;
Oops, y
Am 24.08.2012 02:12, schrieb Andrew Hughes:
In FilePermission.java file, I make one change to its method
signature,
public Enumeration elements() ==> public Enumeration
elements()
I am not sure whether it will cause an issue of backward
compatibility.
Please advise. Thanks!
Actuall
On 29/08/2012 11:15, Premraj wrote:
I was trying to shift from old file API to NIO API (using JDK 7 update 6)
but I found that on Windows (I have Windows 7) platform if I have read only
file then File#delete() call will delete the file while Files#delete(Path)
fails with exception (java.nio.file
On 28/08/2012 05:57, Joe Wang wrote:
:
In DocumentBuilderFactory and SAXParserFactory the javadoc reads "
Otherwise the default implementation is returned if it is on the
classpath or installed as a module". I think this statement needs to
be re-worked, first to remove the word "module" as
Hi all,
I'm not sure whether this is the right place for this question but if in
case its not please direct me to the correct forum.
I was trying to shift from old file API to NIO API (using JDK 7 update 6)
but I found that on Windows (I have Windows 7) platform if I have read only
file then File
Looks good!
While you are there maybe correct indentations and tab -> spaces, e.g.:
531 } catch(Throwable t) {
532 // Do nothing
533 }
But here maybe better:
531 } catch(Throwable t) {} // Do nothing
-Ulf
Am 29.08.2012 07:29,
Hi Joe,
I would urge you to reconsider errors using SL, since SL is being explicitly
called out as part of the specification.
You can make any such SL-related errors more meaningful (yes, i want the stack
trace telling what bits of SL code were called!) and remove any potential for
CCEs, due
On 08/29/2012 08:33 AM, Kurchi Subhra Hazra wrote:
Thanks for cleaning up those spaces Dan. The changes look fine.
Sorry for the extra trouble!
- Kurchi
On 8/28/12 10:22 PM, Dan Xu wrote:
It is funny. :) I have searched all source codes under jdk and
removed spaces for the similar cases.
Ple
Sorry for the delay. Approved.
Cheers,
Edvard
Ps. Please start new threads instead of replying to an old approval
request.
On 08/28/2012 02:22 AM, Kurchi Hazra wrote:
This is a request for approval to backport the fix for 7160252 from 8
to 7u8.
Bug:http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bu
27 matches
Mail list logo
