ently no
>> problems with the java.vm.specification.version property caused by the
>> new versioning schema.
>>
>> As a side note: while I wrote all this down, I realized that we have
>> java.lang.Package.getSpecificationVersion() in the class library which
>> retu
On 29/04/2016 21:03, Martin Buchholz wrote:
Today, I tried google-searching for "LinkedList se 9" which sent me to
http://download.java.net/jdk9/docs/api/java/util/LinkedList.html?is-external=true
which gives me 404. That's an improvement on the stale +104 docs, and
should prod Google's engine
Today, I tried google-searching for "LinkedList se 9" which sent me to
http://download.java.net/jdk9/docs/api/java/util/LinkedList.html?is-external=true
which gives me 404. That's an improvement on the stale +104 docs, and
should prod Google's engine into learning about better docs, but it
may sti
On 27/04/2016 12:26, Martin Buchholz wrote:
I think the jdk9 docs have moved (again, g - I complain about this
sort of thing every release) and so a google search for "package class
se 9" only finds the old one +104 at
http://download.java.net/jdk9/docs/api/java/lang/Package.html
Why can't t
et; Alex Buckley; Kumar
Srinivasan; Marvin Ma
Subject: Re: RFR(XXS): 8149519: Investigate implementation of
java.specification.version
Ping - shouldn't we fix this issue before JDK 9 Feature Complete?
Could you please also comment on my remarks regarding th
Yes, this was the version I've looked to as well. Thanks for pointing this out.
On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 1:26 PM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
> I think the jdk9 docs have moved (again, g - I complain about this
> sort of thing every release) and so a google search for "package class
> se 9" only fi
On 27/04/2016 12:26, Martin Buchholz wrote:
I think the jdk9 docs have moved (again, g - I complain about this
sort of thing every release) and so a google search for "package class
se 9" only finds the old one +104 at
http://download.java.net/jdk9/docs/api/java/lang/Package.html
Why can't
I think the jdk9 docs have moved (again, g - I complain about this
sort of thing every release) and so a google search for "package class
se 9" only finds the old one +104 at
http://download.java.net/jdk9/docs/api/java/lang/Package.html
Why can't there be a redirect instead of leaving the old d
On 27/04/2016 10:54, Volker Simonis wrote:
:
Thanks for the clarification. As far as I can see, this updated
javadoc is still only in the jigsaw repo so I didn't read it before.
It's in JDK 9 since jdk-9+111. I just checked the online/browsable docs
[1] and it's there.
-Alan
[1] http://downl
On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
>
> On 27/04/2016 09:28, Volker Simonis wrote:
>>
>> Ping - shouldn't we fix this issue before JDK 9 Feature Complete?
>>
>> Could you please also comment on my remarks regarding the relation of
>> java.lang.Package.getSpecificationVersion() to
On 27/04/2016 09:28, Volker Simonis wrote:
Ping - shouldn't we fix this issue before JDK 9 Feature Complete?
Could you please also comment on my remarks regarding the relation of
java.lang.Package.getSpecificationVersion() to JEP and 223 and and my
question why the Version class is not in a sta
ersion of a specific package. But this API
> is not mentioned anywhere in JEP 223. Shouldn't the output of
> java.lang.Package.getSpecificationVersion() be aligned with JEP 223
> and java.vm.specification.version as well?
>
> And a final question. Why did we put jdk.Version into the
n will be mandatory for all Java implementations?
Regards,
Volker
> Regards,
> Iris
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Volker Simonis [mailto:volker.simo...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 10:26 AM
> To: Java Core Libs
> Cc: verona-...@openjdk.java.net
>
From: Volker Simonis [mailto:volker.simo...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 10:26 AM
To: Java Core Libs
Cc: verona-...@openjdk.java.net
Subject: Re: RFR(XXS): 8149519: Investigate implementation of
java.specification.version
Hi,
can somebody please review this trivial change?
Regards
Hi,
can somebody please review this trivial change?
Regards,
Volker
On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Volker Simonis wrote:
> Hi,
>
> can I please have a review for this small fix:
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~simonis/webrevs/2016/8149519
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8149519
>
>
15 matches
Mail list logo
