Re: Implicit 'this' return for void methods

On 3/04/2014 6:01 p.m., Peter Levart wrote: On 04/01/2014 11:28 AM, Bruce Chapman wrote: Slightly preceding Ulf's coin proposal by a few hours was http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/coin-dev/2009-March/001134.html Where I suggested the "naked dot" notation (coined in http://mail.openjdk.j

Re: RFR: tests for JDK-8032884

Hi Chris, the test moved: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mkos/8032884/jdk.02/ Thanks Miran On 02/04/14 15:47, Chris Hegarty wrote: On 02/04/14 14:32, Miroslav Kos wrote: In the test, I need to do following steps: 1. compile schema file using xjc tool 2. compile generated sources 3. load genera

[9] Review request for 8039041: tidy warnings cleanup for javax.naming

Hello, Could you please review the fix for the following bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8039041 Webrev corresponding: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~yan/8039041/webrev.00/ Just a minor cleanup of javadoc to avoid tidy warnings; no other code affected. Thanks. Regards, Alexander

Re: [9] Review request for 8039041: tidy warnings cleanup for javax.naming

Hello, I think doclint should checks this type of issues? On 03.04.2014 13:01, alexander stepanov wrote: Hello, Could you please review the fix for the following bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8039041 Webrev corresponding: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~yan/8039041/webrev.00/ Just

RFR : 8039131: CORBA build issue : sun.misc.JavaAWTAccess

The CORBA build issue continues. I was incorrectly using 7u40 as the bootstrap JDK. 7u7 is still the version that RE uses and that causes an issue since sun.misc.JavaAWTAccess wasn't introduced until 7u9. The fix proposed is short term. There's a discussion underway on build-dev to bump the JD

Re: RFR : 8039131: CORBA build issue : sun.misc.JavaAWTAccess

The change looks ok to me. We really need to get of 7u7 as the bootstrap. You could simply catch ReflectiveOpertionException, but what you have is more specific. -Chris. On 3 Apr 2014, at 10:43, Seán Coffey wrote: > The CORBA build issue continues. I was incorrectly using 7u40 as the > boot

Re: RFR : 8039131: CORBA build issue : sun.misc.JavaAWTAccess

I'd suggest holding off a bit until there is a conclusion on the build-dev list (Folks using 7u7 will need to update anyway, if not today then maybe very soon). -Alan On 03/04/2014 10:43, Seán Coffey wrote: The CORBA build issue continues. I was incorrectly using 7u40 as the bootstrap JDK.

Re: RFR : 8039131: CORBA build issue : sun.misc.JavaAWTAccess

Thanks for the reviews. Let's see how the build-dev thread [1] progresses over the next few hours then. I don't think we'll be able to make a decision to flip the bootstrap JDK that quickly but let's see. I'd like to push this later today if no bootstrap decision is made. I don't want to affect

Re: Implicit 'this' return for void methods

On 04/03/2014 09:54 AM, Bruce Chapman wrote: On 3/04/2014 6:01 p.m., Peter Levart wrote: On 04/01/2014 11:28 AM, Bruce Chapman wrote: Slightly preceding Ulf's coin proposal by a few hours was http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/coin-dev/2009-March/001134.html Where I suggested the "naked d

Re: Implicit 'this' return for void methods

On 04/03/2014 09:54 AM, Bruce Chapman wrote: On 3/04/2014 6:01 p.m., Peter Levart wrote: On 04/01/2014 11:28 AM, Bruce Chapman wrote: Slightly preceding Ulf's coin proposal by a few hours was http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/coin-dev/2009-March/001134.html Where I suggested the "naked d

Re: [9] Review request for 8039041: tidy warnings cleanup for javax.naming

Looks fine Lance Andersen| Principal Member of Technical Staff | +1.781.442.2037 Oracle Java Engineering 1 Network Drive Burlington, MA 01803 lance.ander...@oracle.com Sent from my iPad On Apr 3, 2014, at 5:01 AM, alexander stepanov wrote: > Hello, > > Could you please review the fix for t

Re: [9] Review request for 8039041: tidy warnings cleanup for javax.naming

On 03/04/2014 10:01, alexander stepanov wrote: Hello, Could you please review the fix for the following bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8039041 Webrev corresponding: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~yan/8039041/webrev.00/ Just a minor cleanup of javadoc to avoid tidy warnings; no othe

RFR: 8029073: (corba) New connection reclaimed when number of connection is greater than highwatermark

Hello, Can I have a review [1] for a problem [2] in CORBA connections pool implementation: There is a reclamation possibility of newly created connections. The root cause of such behavior is that newly created connections are not timestamped (timestamp = 0) before addition to connection cache.

Re: RFR: tests for JDK-8032884

On 3 Apr 2014, at 09:58, Miroslav Kos wrote: > Hi Chris, > the test moved: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mkos/8032884/jdk.02/ Pushed to jdk9/dev http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/dev/jdk/rev/f6c3cb79d761 -Chris. > Thanks > Miran > > > > On 02/04/14 15:47, Chris Hegarty wrote: >> On 02/04/14 1

Re: RFR: 8029073: (corba) New connection reclaimed when number of connection is greater than highwatermark

Looks good to me Aleksej. regards, Sean. On 03/04/2014 13:13, Aleksej Efimov wrote: Hello, Can I have a review [1] for a problem [2] in CORBA connections pool implementation: There is a reclamation possibility of newly created connections. The root cause of such behavior is that newly created

Re: RFR: 8038306: (tz) Support tzdata2014b

Hi Aleksej, Sorry, but I forgot about the generic names. "Coordinated Universal Time" and "UTC"shouldn't be the generic names. You will need to "invent" the names, something like "Troll Time". Thanks, Masayoshi On 4/2/2014 7:55 PM, Aleksej Efimov wrote: Hello, Can I have a review for the l

Re: RFR: 8038306: (tz) Support tzdata2014b

Masayoshi, How about "Troll Time" and "ATT" for generic long and short names across all locales? The "TT" is used as generic name for "Asia/Taipei" in "zh_TW" locale, because of that I propose "ATT" (A - for Antractica) - it's not used anywhere. Thanks, Aleksej On 04/03/2014 06:21 PM, Masayo

Re: StringBuilder version of java.util.regex.Matcher.append*

On 03/25/2014 02:07 PM, Jeremy Manson wrote: Okay. Thanks, Sherman. Here's an updated version. I've diverged a bit from Peter's version. In this version, appendExpandedReplacement takes a StringBuilder. The implications is that In the StringBuilder case, it saves creating a new StringBuild

Re: RFR (L) 8037210: Get rid of char-based descriptions 'J' of basic types

On Mar 26, 2014, at 8:01 AM, Vladimir Ivanov wrote: > Here's a version with the new naming scheme: > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vlivanov/8037210/webrev.03.naming > > I like existing naming scheme and OBJECT/VOID/LONG/etc names are quite > popular(e.g. Wrapper & ASM (Opcodes) use them). Of c

Re: 8020860: cluster Hashtable/Vector field updates for better transactional memory behaviour

On Mar 25 2014, at 21:21 , David Holmes wrote: > Mike, > > On 26/03/2014 6:37 AM, Mike Duigou wrote: >> Hello all; >> >> Recently HotSpot gained additional support for transactional memory, >> . This patch is a >> libraries followon to that c

Re: RFR (L) 8037210: Get rid of char-based descriptions 'J' of basic types

On Apr 3, 2014, at 6:33 PM, Christian Thalinger wrote: > Of course they are popular because these are the type names. There is no > type L; it’s an object. I don’t understand why we have to use different > names just because they are used in other namespaces. This is not a C define. They s