Bug 8029042: Receiver parameter not supported on local class constructor
also suggests that a local class of an instance method "is a perfectly good
inner class" and so getAnnotatedReceiverType should treat them
equivalently.
On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Joel Borggrén-Franck <
Looks good to me. Good to know we'll be all set for 2038 now! ;-)
/Claes
On 07/22/2016 11:26 PM, Xueming Shen wrote:
Hi,
Please help review the change for JDK-8161942
issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8161942
webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sherman/8161942/webrev
The
Hi,
Please help review the change for JDK-8161942
issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8161942
webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sherman/8161942/webrev
The current ZipInputStream/ZipEntry implementation stores the "date-time"
into the ZIP file/entry's extended timestamp fields in
>>> I would also suggest to pass VM options to jar util in
>>> test/tools/jar/multiRelease/Basic.java:
>>>
>>> 540 commands.add(jar);
>>> +541 commands.addAll(Utils.getForwardVmOptions());
>> Done.
>>
>>> Also it seems that there is no need to compile classes using separate
>>>
Hi Peter,
A filter callback based on blockdata records would more frequently
inform the filter
of progress in the stream and the amount of data being consumed is
already available
from streamBytes. That could improve detection of excessive data
without complicating
the interface and it would
22.07.2016 23:35, Steve Drach пишет:
I would also suggest to pass VM options to jar util in
test/tools/jar/multiRelease/Basic.java:
540 commands.add(jar);
+541 commands.addAll(Utils.getForwardVmOptions());
Done.
Also it seems that there is no need to compile classes using
> I would also suggest to pass VM options to jar util in
> test/tools/jar/multiRelease/Basic.java:
>
> 540 commands.add(jar);
> +541 commands.addAll(Utils.getForwardVmOptions());
Done.
>
> Also it seems that there is no need to compile classes using separate process:
>
> 526
Hi Daniel,
looks good to me.
Maybe you'll want to take the chance to update the apache headers in the xalan
files?
Best regards
Christoph
> -Original Message-
> From: core-libs-dev [mailto:core-libs-dev-boun...@openjdk.java.net] On Behalf
> Of Daniel Fuchs
> Sent: Freitag, 22. Juli
Hi,
Please find below a fix for
8153082: Update XSTL compiler to generate classes that invoke addReads
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8153082
This fix removes a dependency from java.xml to an internal
java base API.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dfuchs/webrev_8153082/webrev.00/
It
Hi Roger,
On 07/21/2016 08:19 PM, Roger Riggs wrote:
- The call-back is invoked after the type of the object and
possible array length is read from stream but before the object's
state is read. Suppose that the object that is about to be read is
either Externalizable object or an object with
Hi Steve,
I would also suggest to pass VM options to jar util in
test/tools/jar/multiRelease/Basic.java:
540 commands.add(jar);
+541 commands.addAll(Utils.getForwardVmOptions());
Also it seems that there is no need to compile classes using separate
process:
526
On 22/07/16 10:15, Frank Yuan wrote:
Hi Daniel
Thank you very much for your review and the comments!
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Fuchs [mailto:daniel.fu...@oracle.com]
Subject: Re: RFR (JAXP) JDK-8067170: Enable security manager on JAXP unit tests
Hi Frank,
I see that in order
Hi,
I have a customer reporting the following phenomena which I believe is an issue.
Consider the following xsl:
-XSL-
http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform; version="1.0">
These tests are expected to throw exceptions:
test_strict_appendOffsetId()
test_strict_appendOffset_1()
test_strict_appendOffset_2()
test_strict_appendOffset_3()
test_strict_appendOffset_4()
As such, they should not contain assertEquals(). They should only
contain the code that is expected to
Hi Roger,
Thanks for the comments and sorry for the incorrect link.
Please see the updated webrev which includes your suggestions.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ntv/8066806/webrev.10/
--
Thanks and Regards,
Nadeesh TV
On 7/21/2016 6:59 PM, Roger Riggs wrote:
Hi Nadeesh,
Found the changes in
Hi Daniel
Thank you very much for your review and the comments!
> -Original Message-
> From: Daniel Fuchs [mailto:daniel.fu...@oracle.com]
> Subject: Re: RFR (JAXP) JDK-8067170: Enable security manager on JAXP unit
> tests
>
> Hi Frank,
>
> I see that in order to be able to run the
Hi,
could you please approve the backport of the following, mostly ppc64
change to jdk8u-dev:
8152172: PPC64: Support AES intrinsics
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8152172
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~simonis/webrevs/2016/8152172_8u_hs/
Webrev
Hi Frank,
I see that in order to be able to run the tests, you were forced
to add a few permissions that the test/test infrastructure need
to setup things:
107 addPermission(new SecurityPermission("getPolicy"));
108 addPermission(new SecurityPermission("setPolicy"));
109
On 07/22/2016 09:00 AM, Peter Levart wrote:
If you think that such addition starts to become complex from
combinatorial standpoint then what about passing an additional enum
argument identifying a particular "event"? It would then be easy do
document the rest of parameters for each event
According to Amy's suggestion, re-generate a webrev
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~fyuan/8067170/webrev.01/ as well as fix some issues,
please check.
Thanks
Frank
> -Original Message-
> From: Amy Lu [mailto:amy...@oracle.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 5:42 PM
> To: Frank Yuan;
20 matches
Mail list logo
