RFR: JDK-8186153, , Fix a11y and HTML issues in the java.math, java.text and java.time packages

Please review the following changes to fix accessibility and HTML issues in the java.math, java.text and java.time packages. Mostly, it's "more of the same", setting scope=row|col on tables. One bigger change is in DateTimeFormatter, to change a preformatted ASCII table into a standard HTML

Re: RFR: JDK-8186153, , Fix a11y and HTML issues in the java.math, java.text and java.time packages

Hi Jon, Looks OK overall Any thoughts on centering some of the column values such as in RoundingMode at some point? DateTimeFormatter looks much nicer :-) Best Lance > On Aug 11, 2017, at 2:28 PM, Jonathan Gibbons > wrote: > > Please review the following

Re: RFR(xs): 6344935: Clarify Object.wait javadoc with respect to spurious wakeups

On 8/11/17 11:25 AM, Stuart Marks wrote: diff -r 27b08ab97a60 -r ebd66cd27b29 src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/Object.java --- a/src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/Object.javaThu Aug 03 09:04:47 2017 -0700 +++ b/src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/Object.javaFri Aug 11

Re: RFR(xs): 6344935: Clarify Object.wait javadoc with respect to spurious wakeups

There's also an existing paragraph in Condition that goes "When waiting upon a Condition, a spurious ... " On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:50 AM, Martin Buchholz wrote: > Can we align the wording with existing wording in either LockSupport or > Condition? > > On Fri, Aug 11,

Re: RFR: JDK-8186153, , Fix a11y and HTML issues in the java.math, java.text and java.time packages

On Aug 11, 2017, at 11:44 AM, Lance Andersen wrote: > Looks OK overall +1 > Any thoughts on centering some of the column values such as in RoundingMode > at some point? That might be better. Brian

RFR JDK-8184120 : javax.transaction.xa.Xid constants reference obsolete method names

Hi all The following change was addressed in the JTA 1.0.1B update but looks like the field descriptions were missed when the method names changed. The CSR for this change has also been approved. — hg diff diff -r 74988518da9a

Re: RFR(xs): 6344935: Clarify Object.wait javadoc with respect to spurious wakeups

Can we align the wording with existing wording in either LockSupport or Condition? On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Stuart Marks wrote: > This is an old spec bug. The Object.wait spec lists several different > reasons a thread could be awakened, but it omits spurious

RE: RFR(jdk10/jaxp) 8163121: BCEL: update to the latest 6.0 release

Hi Joe and Daniel > > So far so good, most of them still seem to be present in > > your changes, but I have a doubt about these two: > > > > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8062608 > > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8064516 > > > > Has the issue been fixed upstream in a

Re: RFR(XS) : 8186095 : upgrade to jtreg 4.2 b08

Hi Igor, In (some of) the TEST.ROOT files, maintenance of the files can be simplified by removing the version number from the comment. The version that is in jaxp is reasonable: "# Minimum jtreg version" and should be applied to the hotspot, jdk, langtools, and nashorn TEST.ROOT files.

Re: RFR(jdk10/jaxp) 8163121: BCEL: update to the latest 6.0 release

Hi Joe, Thanks, looks fine now! best regards, -- daniel On 10/08/2017 04:13, huizhe wang wrote: On 8/9/2017 6:30 AM, Daniel Fuchs wrote: Hi Joe, This not an easy patch to review ;-) Indeed, took several minutes just to copy the webrevs :-) Thanks for explaining how you arrived at the

JDK 10 RFR of 8186157: (scanner) Modify java/util/Scanner/ScanTest.java to fail if Engilsh Locale unavailable

https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8186157 This change is intended to put a branch in the test which will fail if the English Locale is unavailable on the system with a view toward detecting a configuration problem as opposed to an actual test failure. Thanks, Brian @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ /*

Re: RFR(jdk10/jaxp) 8163121: BCEL: update to the latest 6.0 release

Thanks Daniel! Best regards, Joe On 8/11/2017 3:31 AM, Daniel Fuchs wrote: Hi Joe, Thanks, looks fine now! best regards, -- daniel On 10/08/2017 04:13, huizhe wang wrote: On 8/9/2017 6:30 AM, Daniel Fuchs wrote: Hi Joe, This not an easy patch to review ;-) Indeed, took several

Re: RFR: JDK-8186153, , Fix a11y and HTML issues in the java.math, java.text and java.time packages

Hi Jon > On Aug 11, 2017, at 3:10 PM, Jonathan Gibbons > wrote: > > Lance, > > I was in two minds about changing the layout of the columns in RoundingMode. > It can sometimes hard to discern the intent of the author. In addition, > numbers > can be problematic

Re: RFR: JDK-8186153, , Fix a11y and HTML issues in the java.math, java.text and java.time packages

On 08/11/2017 01:32 PM, Lance Andersen wrote: Hi Jon On Aug 11, 2017, at 3:10 PM, Jonathan Gibbons > wrote: Lance, I was in two minds about changing the layout of the columns in RoundingMode. It can sometimes hard to discern

Re: RFR(XS) : 8186095 : upgrade to jtreg 4.2 b08

On 8/10/17 9:02 PM, Igor Ignatyev wrote: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~iignatyev//8186095/webrev.00/index.html hotspot/test/runtime/Metaspace/FragmentMetaspaceSimple.java 26 * @library /test/lib classes 27 * @build test.Empty 28 * @run driver ClassFileInstaller test.Empty

Re: JDK 10 RFR of 8186157: (scanner) Modify java/util/Scanner/ScanTest.java to fail if Engilsh Locale unavailable

Subject: s/Engilsh/English/ On Aug 11, 2017, at 2:22 PM, Brian Burkhalter wrote: > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8186157 > > This change is intended to put a branch in the test which will fail if the > English Locale is unavailable on the system with a

Re: JDK 10 RFR of 8186157: (scanner) Modify java/util/Scanner/ScanTest.java to fail if Engilsh Locale unavailable

+1 -- 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 iPhone > On Aug 11, 2017, at 5:25 PM, Brian Burkhalter > wrote: > > Subject:

Re: RFR(xs): 6344935: Clarify Object.wait javadoc with respect to spurious wakeups

In general, I'm in favor of ensuring that wording in various bits of the specification is well aligned. I don't see specifically what would need to be improved in this case, though. Can we align the wording with existing wording in either LockSupport or Condition? The various

Re: RFR: JDK-8186153, , Fix a11y and HTML issues in the java.math, java.text and java.time packages

Hi Jon, looks good, While you are in DateTimeFormatter.java can you add a leading ' (single-quote) to the example for ISO_WEEK_DATE in the Predefiend Formatters table. Line 246. Thanks, Roger On 8/11/2017 4:59 PM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote: On 08/11/2017 01:32 PM, Lance Andersen wrote:

Re: RFR: JDK-8186153, , Fix a11y and HTML issues in the java.math, java.text and java.time packages

Lance, I was in two minds about changing the layout of the columns in RoundingMode. It can sometimes hard to discern the intent of the author. In addition, numbers can be problematic because ideally you want the overall column of numbers to "centered", but each individual number to be

RFR: JDK-8186156: Fix a11y and HTML issues in java.net and javax.net packages

Please review the following fix for accessibility and HTML issues in the java.net and javax.net packages. The only edit of note is that a table was simply removed from the top of URLConnection. The table was an "HTML art" depiction of actions on a timeline, complete with an ASCII-art time

Re: RFR: JDK-8186156: Fix a11y and HTML issues in java.net and javax.net packages

On 8/11/17 3:52 PM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote: Please review the following fix for accessibility and HTML issues in the java.net and javax.net packages. The only edit of note is that a table was simply removed from the top of URLConnection. The table was an "HTML art" depiction of actions on

Re: RFR(xs): 6344935: Clarify Object.wait javadoc with respect to spurious wakeups

Thanks for working on Object.wait. Doc writing is never easy, especially in Object.java. In the original proposed patch, the word "also" ends up weird, because spurious wakeup *was* in the list above; we need to do something about that. On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Stuart Marks

Re: RFR(xs): 6344935: Clarify Object.wait javadoc with respect to spurious wakeups

On 12/08/2017 10:58 AM, Hans Boehm wrote: Any chance the example code in the documentation that is quoted below could also be adjusted to e.g. synchronized (obj) { while () { ; obj.wait(); } ... // Perform action appropriate to

Re: RFR(XS) : 8186095 : upgrade to jtreg 4.2 b08

Hi Mandy, thank you for your review. although jdk.test.lib.compiler.CompilerUtils is easy to use, it introduces dependency on jdk.compiler module and currently FragmentMetaspaceSimple.java depends only on java.base module and I would prefer it remain so. Thanks, -- Igor > On Aug 11, 2017,

Re: RFR(xs): 6344935: Clarify Object.wait javadoc with respect to spurious wakeups

Any chance the example code in the documentation that is quoted below could also be adjusted to e.g. synchronized (obj) { while () { ; obj.wait(); } ... // Perform action appropriate to condition } and similarly for the nanos case?

Re: RFR(xs): 6344935: Clarify Object.wait javadoc with respect to spurious wakeups

OK, I'll try my hand as well at making forward progress: diff --git a/src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/Object.java b/src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/Object.java --- a/src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/Object.java +++ b/src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/Object.java @@ -334,7

Re: RFR: JDK-8186156: Fix a11y and HTML issues in java.net and javax.net packages

+1 > On Aug 11, 2017, at 6:52 PM, Jonathan Gibbons > wrote: > > Please review the following fix for accessibility and HTML issues in the > java.net and javax.net packages. > > The only edit of note is that a table was simply removed from the top of >

RFR(xs): 6344935: Clarify Object.wait javadoc with respect to spurious wakeups

This is an old spec bug. The Object.wait spec lists several different reasons a thread could be awakened, but it omits spurious wakeup -- even though spurious wakeup is described later on. The fix is simply to add spurious wakeup to the list. There is some discussion in the original bug

Re: RFR(xs): 6344935: Clarify Object.wait javadoc with respect to spurious wakeups

Looks fine Stuart > On Aug 11, 2017, at 2:25 PM, Stuart Marks wrote: > > This is an old spec bug. The Object.wait spec lists several different reasons > a thread could be awakened, but it omits spurious wakeup -- even though > spurious wakeup is described later on.