Hi Martin,
Thanks for the very useful links!
I will study those first...
Regards,
chenzero
On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Martin Buchholz
wrote:
> Hi chen,
>
> The latest versions of the code lives in jsr166 CVS
> http://g.oswego.edu/dl/concurrency-interest/
> http://gee.cs.oswego.edu/cgi-bi
On 2017/1/6 6:15, Roger Riggs wrote:
Hi Hamlin,
There are too many issues being mixed together...
Comments on B) RegistryImpl:
Refactoring of RegistryImpl Main should be clean and clearly separated.
Hi Roger,
Thank you for reviewing.
Not sure if I understood you correctly, I created a new b
Hi Roger,
Thank you for reviewing, please check comments inline.
This is a bug separated from JDK-8030175
bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8172314
webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mli/8172314/webrev.00/
On 2017/1/5 4:18, Roger Riggs wrote:
Hi Hamlin,
The original issue with
Hi Felix,
Generally looks good.
RuntimeTest
—
78 @BeforeTest
79 protected void setUpTest() throws Throwable {
Can you use @BeforeClass? since i believe the jar files only need to be created
once for all tests.
(And i presume it just overwrites any existing files that were previous
Hi Hamlin,
Yes, that looks better.
On the comments, use the normal javadoc comment conventions for any
public API.
@param @return, @throw, etc.
I think comments should be direct about what the function does. It does
not need
to explain why so much. Or if so, later and in a separate paragrap
Hi Hamlin,
Since it is intermittent, are there any diagnostics that can be added to
the test in case it fails again.
if not, ok as is.
Thanks, Roger
On 1/5/2017 8:55 PM, Hamlin Li wrote:
On 2017/1/6 6:15, Roger Riggs wrote:
On 1/4/2017 10:21 PM, Hamlin Li wrote:
Hi Roger,
Thank you f
Hi Peter, Daniel, Mandy,
Sorry for the late reply, and thanks for the patch. I went through the
patch and I did not find any problem with it. Would you want to proceed
with this?
Naoto
On 12/13/16 2:14 AM, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
Hi Peter,
This is a bold proposal, I would be frightened to touc
Thanks for looking through this, Naoto.
This has been pushed and resolved in jdk-9+149.
Mandy
> On Jan 6, 2017, at 3:46 PM, Naoto Sato wrote:
>
> Hi Peter, Daniel, Mandy,
>
> Sorry for the late reply, and thanks for the patch. I went through the patch
> and I did not find any problem with it
Hi Mandy, Naoto,
I think Mandy's original proposal has been pushed, but the
simplification of CacheKey is still open:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8171139
as well as the re-examination of clearCahe methods:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8171140
Were you thinking of th
