On Apr 3, 2015, at 5:41 PM, huizhe wang wrote:
>
> On 4/2/2015 10:11 PM, Frank Yuan wrote:
>> Yes, understand, thank you very much! I will follow this rule you talked in
>> future!
>>
>> Well, since current code is ok for you, would you like to be my sponsor to
>> push the code?
>
> Will d
Hi,
Please help review the changeset for
issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8076641
webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sherman/8076641/webrev/
It appears there is zip tool over there that purposely doesn't generate the
complete
NTFS timestamp in loc table (while it does generate
Looks fine to me, thanks for taking care of it.
Cheers,
Henry
On 04/03/2015 02:57 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
This is a request for review for a small change to address 8076442 [1].
Seems to be a day one bug in the internal BitSetIterator, for a boundary
condition when the Integer.MAX_VALUE bit
On 4/2/2015 10:11 PM, Frank Yuan wrote:
Yes, understand, thank you very much! I will follow this rule you
talked in future!
Well, since current code is ok for you, would you like to be my
sponsor to push the code?
Will do once Lance finishes the review.
Best,
Joe
Best Regards
Frank
@Build folk:
There is a trivial change to a makefile in the langtools repo.
Looks good to me.
Tim
On 04/02/15 16:52, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
Sorry for the relatively wide distribution.
JDK-8076583 is a conceptually simple cleanup, to move the source file
for the jdk.Exported class from the
On 04/03/2015 05:03 PM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
Peter,
Some more thought is needed in that area of the field setter API. If there are
no strong objections, then I’d like to proceed with this version of better
failure atomicity, and follow up as needed.
-Chris.
I agree. We can revisit this la
On 3.4.2015 01:52, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
Sorry for the relatively wide distribution.
JDK-8076583 is a conceptually simple cleanup, to move the source file
for the jdk.Exported class from the langtools repo (where it is a
singleton outlier) to the jdk repo (alongside most of the rest of the
cla
Hello,
Can I have a review for a JDK9 bulk update of JAX-B/WS from upstream
projects.
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aefimov/8076549/9/00/
More details in issue description:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8076549
Thank you,
Aleksej
Peter,
Some more thought is needed in that area of the field setter API. If there are
no strong objections, then I’d like to proceed with this version of better
failure atomicity, and follow up as needed.
-Chris.
On 20 Mar 2015, at 16:30, Chris Hegarty wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> On 20 Mar 2015,
On 4/2/2015 4:52 PM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
Sorry for the relatively wide distribution.
JDK-8076583 is a conceptually simple cleanup, to move the source file
for the jdk.Exported class from the langtools repo (where it is a
singleton outlier) to the jdk repo (alongside most of the rest of the
On 3 Apr 2015, at 14:20, Pavel Rappo wrote:
> Hi Kasper,
>
> I assume your questions are all about WebSocket part, right? If so, then
>
>> 1)
>> Would it possible to add a connect timeout parameter.
>> builder.setConnectTimeout(long timeout, TimeUnit unit)
>>
>> For some reason it was left ou
Hi Kasper,
I assume your questions are all about WebSocket part, right? If so, then
> 1)
> Would it possible to add a connect timeout parameter.
> builder.setConnectTimeout(long timeout, TimeUnit unit)
>
> For some reason it was left out of the javax.websocket API. And working
> around it is a s
Thanks Alan,Note that the repro given in my mail is a bit simpler than the
current defect description, especially if you don't have access to the "MyFace"
JDBC driver.Regards,Robert
On Friday, 3 April 2015, 13:04, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 03/04/2015 10:33, Robert Gibson wrote:
> Hi there,
>
>
On 03/04/2015 10:57, Chris Hegarty wrote:
This is a request for review for a small change to address 8076442 [1].
Seems to be a day one bug in the internal BitSetIterator, for a boundary
condition when the Integer.MAX_VALUE bit is set. The change to the iterator,
and test, is in line with th
On 03/04/2015 10:33, Robert Gibson wrote:
Hi there,
We are doing some early testing with JDK 9 and have discovered that the changes
made to java.sql.DriverManager back in November/December have introduced an
incompatibility with our JDBC driver (that we have used unchanged since Java 6)
when
This is a request for review for a small change to address 8076442 [1].
Seems to be a day one bug in the internal BitSetIterator, for a boundary
condition when the Integer.MAX_VALUE bit is set. The change to the iterator,
and test, is in line with the advise in BitSet.nextSetBit(int) (
break/te
Hi there,
We are doing some early testing with JDK 9 and have discovered that the changes
made to java.sql.DriverManager back in November/December have introduced an
incompatibility with our JDBC driver (that we have used unchanged since Java 6)
when it is pre-loaded with Class.forName (as reco
17 matches
Mail list logo
