Re: RFR 8170900: Issue with FilePermission::implies for wildcard flag(-)

Hi Max, Sorry for the delay. Since this not part of the specification of the behavior I'm ok with the informal descriptions. Roger On 1/2/2017 10:40 PM, Wang Weijun wrote: Ping again. On Dec 22, 2016, at 8:23 AM, Wang Weijun wrote: Hi Roger On Dec 20, 2016, at

Re: RFR 8170900: Issue with FilePermission::implies for wildcard flag(-)

Ping again. > On Dec 22, 2016, at 8:23 AM, Wang Weijun wrote: > > Hi Roger > >> On Dec 20, 2016, at 11:49 PM, Roger Riggs wrote: >> >> Hi Max, >> >> Comments: >> >> - Is there a better term/phrase to use other than "foo"; it does not appear

Re: RFR 8170900: Issue with FilePermission::implies for wildcard flag(-)

Hi Roger > On Dec 20, 2016, at 11:49 PM, Roger Riggs wrote: > > Hi Max, > > Comments: > > - Is there a better term/phrase to use other than "foo"; it does not appear > elsewhere in the @implNote. It appears in the spec of this method: * p's pathname is implied by

Re: RFR 8170900: Issue with FilePermission::implies for wildcard flag(-)

> On Dec 22, 2016, at 8:12 AM, Xuelei Fan wrote: > > I think the note is an example, may not need an additional CCC. That's always my understanding. > > For easier reading, I may use a contrast example. For example, "Note that > this means "/-" implies "/foo" but not

Re: RFR 8170900: Issue with FilePermission::implies for wildcard flag(-)

I think the note is an example, may not need an additional CCC. For easier reading, I may use a contrast example. For example, "Note that this means "/-" implies "/foo" but not "foo".". Use the one you like, I'm OK with the either. Xuelei On 12/21/2016 3:58 PM, Wang Weijun wrote: On Dec

Re: RFR 8170900: Issue with FilePermission::implies for wildcard flag(-)

> On Dec 22, 2016, at 4:39 AM, Xuelei Fan wrote: > > I'm trying to understand this update. Does "/-" imply "/foo"? Yes. > > Does the following spec can be used to explain the new added note? > > * if the wildcard flag is "-", the simple pathname's path >

Re: RFR 8170900: Issue with FilePermission::implies for wildcard flag(-)

I'm trying to understand this update. Does "/-" imply "/foo"? Does the following spec can be used to explain the new added note? * if the wildcard flag is "-", the simple pathname's path * must be recursively inside the wildcard pathname's path. Xuelei On 12/19/2016 11:25

Re: RFR 8170900: Issue with FilePermission::implies for wildcard flag(-)

Hi Max, Comments: - Is there a better term/phrase to use other than "foo"; it does not appear elsewhere in the @implNote. The use of "cpath" and "npath" implies that someone is reading the source code. The description of the behavior of the implementation should use the same

Re: RFR 8170900: Issue with FilePermission::implies for wildcard flag(-)

Ping again. > On Dec 14, 2016, at 1:53 PM, Wang Weijun wrote: > > An clarification is added to FilePermission::implies: > > * @implNote > > * a simple {@code npath} is recursively inside a wildcard {@code npath} > * if and only if {@code