> Please review these JNDI changes.
> Bug detail: http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=7072353
> webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mduigou/7072353/0/webrev/
Thanks for your effort to make JNDI free of compile-warning. The work is
hard, I appreciate it.
1. I noticed the copyright d
Changeset: 809e8db0c142
Author:chegar
Date: 2011-07-29 10:55 -0700
URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/809e8db0c142
6978200: ServerSocket.toString include "port=0" in the returned String
Summary: Removal of "port=0" from ServerSocket.toString method
Reviewed-by: alanb, c
Xuelei Fan wrote:
:
1. I noticed the copyright date of a few files are unchanged, please
update them before you push the changes.
This has come up a few times but I don't think it is strictly required.
Kelly or one of the release engineers run a script over the forest
periodically to fix up
On Aug 3, 2011, at 12:11 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
> Xuelei Fan wrote:
>> :
>> 1. I noticed the copyright date of a few files are unchanged, please
>> update them before you push the changes.
>>
> This has come up a few times but I don't think it is strictly required. Kelly
> or one of the rel
Thanks for reviewing! Please see my responses inline.
I'll wait on sending another webrev until I've received the rest of your
comments.
-Sasha
On 8/2/2011 2:19 AM, Xuelei Fan wrote:
Please review these JNDI changes.
Bug detail: http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=7072353
webr
Thanks for reviewing! See my responses inline.
I'll wait on sending another webrev until I've received the rest of your
comments.
-Sasha
On 8/2/2011 2:19 AM, Xuelei Fan wrote:
Please review these JNDI changes.
Bug detail: http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=7072353
webrev: htt
Hello All;
A fairly simple bug to review which snuck through testing.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mduigou/7073296/0/webrev/
The changes to Class are incidental but so trivial that opted to include them.
I can remove if anyone feels strongly (or even weakly) that they should be
excluded.
Mike
Hi Mike.
Thanks for developing the fix for this. Generally looks good to go
back; a few minor nits. Personally, I would leave the "// Doesn't use
Boolean.getBoolean to avoid class init." note in java.lang.Class unless
you know the comment is not relevant any more. Given the default
semanti
On Aug 2 2011, at 15:27 , [email protected] wrote:
> Hi Mike.
>
> Thanks for developing the fix for this. Generally looks good to go back; a
> few minor nits. Personally, I would leave the "// Doesn't use
> Boolean.getBoolean to avoid class init." note in java.lang.Class unless you
> kno
On 8/2/2011 3:32 PM, Mike Duigou wrote:
On Aug 2 2011, at 15:27 , [email protected] wrote:
Hi Mike.
Thanks for developing the fix for this. Generally looks good to go back; a few minor
nits. Personally, I would leave the "// Doesn't use Boolean.getBoolean to avoid
class init." note i
com/sun/jndi/toolkit/dir/SearchFilter.java
451 for (NamingEnumeration ve = attr.getAll();
452 ve.hasMore();
453) {
The update is OK. But the coding style looks uncomfortable. Would you
mind change it to use for-each style?
. javax/naming/directory/BasicAtt
Am 02.08.2011 21:44, schrieb Mike Duigou:
Hello All;
A fairly simple bug to review which snuck through testing.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mduigou/7073296/0/webrev/
The changes to Class are incidental but so trivial that opted to include them.
I can remove if anyone feels strongly (or even w
12 matches
Mail list logo
