All,
A drive-by set of warning fixes:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mikael/webrevs/jdk-warnings/jdk-warnings/webrev.00/
Highlights:
* src/share/native/com/sun/java/util/jar/pack/bands.cpp
Set the size of the array explicitly to increase likelihood of enum and
struct array being in sync. Argua
In the long term will it be possible to just mark j.u.Date as deprecated
since the new Date and Time libs have come in? Avoids having to fix old
behaviour that folks might be relying on.
Cheers,
Martijn
On 14 February 2014 18:56, David M. Lloyd wrote:
> Interestingly, if the behavior in this
Created an issue for this one.
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8035042
Need go dig out some history. requireEnd is primarily designed for
j.u.Scanner.
-Sherman
On 2/15/14 8:02 AM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
Java has had for a while now a bug in its regex system which I'd like
to see fi
Corrected link - this webrev is based on jdk9/client:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mikael/webrevs/jdk-warnings/webrev.01/webrev/
Cheers,
Mikael
> On Feb 14, 2014, at 17:54, Mikael Vidstedt wrote:
>
>
> All,
>
> A drive-by set of warning fixes:
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mikael/webrevs/
IMHO, I think that is a tall task. There is such a large base of code that
uses it or java.sql.Date, that having warnings for deprecation will cause a lot
of angst. That code is not going to migrate quickly, if at all to the new
types.
Best
Lance
Lance Andersen| Principal Member of Technica
Hi,
Not likely to deprecate Date due to the pervasive use.
But it is highly unlikely that java.util.Date will be evolving, since
java.time exists
there is no need or desire to add any functionality to Date. But it is
just one case
of the serialized form issues that are being discussed.
Roge
Looks OK to me although I just realised there's no bug ID here
FWIW I develop on WIndows, Mac & Linux and I've noticed widely divergent
things that the compilers on these platforms warn about. Warning
free on Linux might not mean warning free on Windows.
Also, assuming you develop on Linux migh
On 15/02/2014 18:27, Martin Buchholz wrote:
:
OK, so is this code for the benefit of "real" users or openjdk
developers? If the latter, it doesn't pull its weight - "Dude, you
forgot to remove your printf debugging statements". If the former,
this feature needs to be explained somewhere - y
