Re: [1] RFR(XXS): 8197927: Can't set mandatory 'java.vendor.version' property to empty string

On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 8:17 PM, wrote: > 2018/2/16 10:59:57 -0800, volker.simo...@gmail.com: > > On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 7:02 PM, mark.reinh...@oracle.com wrote: > >> Of course it's possible. The specification need merely say that > >> `java.vendor.version` is a

Re: [1] RFR(XXS): 8197927: Can't set mandatory 'java.vendor.version' property to empty string

2018/2/16 10:59:57 -0800, volker.simo...@gmail.com: > On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 7:02 PM, mark.reinh...@oracle.com wrote: >> Of course it's possible. The specification need merely say that >> `java.vendor.version` is a standard system property that may, or may >> not, have a value. (Or, if you

Re: [1] RFR(XXS): 8197927: Can't set mandatory 'java.vendor.version' property to empty string

On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 7:02 PM, wrote: > 2018/2/14 8:04:15 -0800, volker.simo...@gmail.com: > > On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 4:26 PM, mark.reinh...@oracle.com wrote: > >> This is a bug in the specification, not the implementation. As I just > >> wrote in a comment on

Re: [1] RFR(XXS): 8197927: Can't set mandatory 'java.vendor.version' property to empty string

2018/2/14 8:04:15 -0800, volker.simo...@gmail.com: > On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 4:26 PM, mark.reinh...@oracle.com wrote: >> This is a bug in the specification, not the implementation. As I just >> wrote in a comment on 8197927: >> >> JEP 322 expresses the intended behavior: If

Re: [1] RFR(XXS): 8197927: Can't set mandatory 'java.vendor.version' property to empty string

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 4:26 PM, wrote: > 2018/2/14 2:20:22 -0800, volker.simo...@gmail.com: >> can I please get a review for the following tiny fix: >> >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~simonis/webrevs/2018/8197927/ >> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8197927 >>

Re: [1] RFR(XXS): 8197927: Can't set mandatory 'java.vendor.version' property to empty string

2018/2/14 2:20:22 -0800, volker.simo...@gmail.com: > can I please get a review for the following tiny fix: > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~simonis/webrevs/2018/8197927/ > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8197927 > > The new Java 10 specification makes the 'java.vendor.version' property >

Re: [1] RFR(XXS): 8197927: Can't set mandatory 'java.vendor.version' property to empty string

Thanks Thomas. The sole reason for making it P1 is that it is currently not possible to build a Java 10 conforming version of OpenJDK with an empty vendor version. The specification doesn't mandate a non-empty vendor version and I don't think OpenJDK should mandate on either. Regards, Volker

Re: [1] RFR(XXS): 8197927: Can't set mandatory 'java.vendor.version' property to empty string

Fix is fine, trivial and I do not think there is any risk attached to it. I am not in any position to comment whether this is P1. Copyright year needs adjusting. Kind Regards, Thomas On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 11:20 AM, Volker Simonis wrote: > Hi, > > can I please get a

[1] RFR(XXS): 8197927: Can't set mandatory 'java.vendor.version' property to empty string

Hi, can I please get a review for the following tiny fix: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~simonis/webrevs/2018/8197927/ https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8197927 The new Java 10 specification makes the 'java.vendor.version' property mandatory [1] but the current implementations doesn't allow