Re: Review request for 4917309 and 6864003

2009-07-24 Thread Mandy Chung
Thanks everyone. I like clean code as well. Since it's a new entry point and launcher hasn't used it yet, it is the best chance to clean this up. I will eliminate the throwError parameter and do the synchronized integration. Caveat: I have to double check if FX launcher is using this entry

Re: Review request for 4917309 and 6864003

2009-07-24 Thread Mandy Chung
Alan Bateman wrote: Mandy, I see in ClassLoader#loadClass that you still allow findBootstrapClassOrNull to throw CNF. I assume this is needed until there is a promoted build with the updated JVM_FindClassFromBootLoader, after which you will go back to clean it up - do I have this right? I l

Re: Review request for 4917309 and 6864003

2009-07-24 Thread Alan Bateman
Paul Hohensee wrote: Can't remove it unless it's fixed in jdk6 as well as 7. Also, one of these days we'll get around to shipping current hotspot in jdk5 and maybe 1.4.2. How would these be affected? paul I don't think it is used as it's not in the jdk's jvm.h yet. I checked jdk6 this morni

Re: Review request for 4917309 and 6864003

2009-07-24 Thread Paul Hohensee
Then just ignore what I said. :) Paul Karen Kinnear wrote: JVM_FindClassFromBootLoader is new with JDK7. Kumar added it. thanks, Karen On Jul 24, 2009, at 11:07 AM, Paul Hohensee wrote: Can't remove it unless it's fixed in jdk6 as well as 7. Also, one of these days we'll get around to ship

Re: Review request for 4917309 and 6864003

2009-07-24 Thread Karen Kinnear
JVM_FindClassFromBootLoader is new with JDK7. Kumar added it. thanks, Karen On Jul 24, 2009, at 11:07 AM, Paul Hohensee wrote: Can't remove it unless it's fixed in jdk6 as well as 7. Also, one of these days we'll get around to shipping current hotspot in jdk5 and maybe 1.4.2. How would th

Re: Review request for 4917309 and 6864003

2009-07-24 Thread Paul Hohensee
Can't remove it unless it's fixed in jdk6 as well as 7. Also, one of these days we'll get around to shipping current hotspot in jdk5 and maybe 1.4.2. How would these be affected? paul Keith McGuigan wrote: I would prefer that we avoid requiring synchronous pushes (so I guess I think we sh

Re: Review request for 4917309 and 6864003

2009-07-24 Thread Keith McGuigan
I would prefer that we avoid requiring synchronous pushes (so I guess I think we should leave that parameter in for now). If anything, maybe file a low-priority RFE to remove that parameter later? -- - Keith Mandy Chung wrote: David Holmes - Sun Microsystems wrote: Hi Mandy, 661 JVM_ENTR

Re: Review request for 4917309 and 6864003

2009-07-24 Thread Alan Bateman
Mandy Chung wrote: David Holmes - Sun Microsystems wrote: Hi Mandy, 661 JVM_ENTRY(jclass, JVM_FindClassFromBootLoader(JNIEnv* env, 662 const char* name, 663 jboolean throwError)) Can't we now drop th

Re: Review request for 4917309 and 6864003

2009-07-23 Thread Mandy Chung
David Holmes - Sun Microsystems wrote: Hi Mandy, 661 JVM_ENTRY(jclass, JVM_FindClassFromBootLoader(JNIEnv* env, 662 const char* name, 663 jboolean throwError)) Can't we now drop the throwError paramet

Re: Review request for 4917309 and 6864003

2009-07-23 Thread David Holmes - Sun Microsystems
Hi Mandy, 661 JVM_ENTRY(jclass, JVM_FindClassFromBootLoader(JNIEnv* env, 662 const char* name, 663 jboolean throwError)) Can't we now drop the throwError parameter altogether? Pity we can't make a sim

Review request for 4917309 and 6864003

2009-07-23 Thread Mandy Chung
This review request is for both the HotSpot runtime and the core libs teams. Fixed 4917309: (cl) Reduce internal usage of ClassNotFoundExceptions during class-loading Fixed 6864003: Modify JVM_FindClassFromBootLoader to return null if class not found Summary: o Fix java.lang.ClassLoader to u