RE: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] RFR(L) - 2nd round: 8024854: Basic changes and files to build the class library on AIX

So overall it looks good to me and should be pushed to the staging forest once you hear from others that commented previously. I think that means Chris Hegarty, Michael McMahon, and Sergey Bylokhov. Alan, please correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks, iris -Original Message- From: Alan

RE: AWT Dev RFR(L) - 2nd round: 8024854: Basic changes and files to build the class library on AIX

Hi. http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~simonis/webrevs/8024854.v3/ + src/solaris/classes/java/lang/UNIXProcess.java.aix 2 * Copyright (c) 1995, 2013, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved. 3 * DO NOT ALTER OR REMOVE COPYRIGHT NOTICES OR THIS FILE HEADER. Oracle copyright in

RE: RFR JDK-8038178: Fix corrupt license header

Hi, Pavel. Oops. Looks good to me. iris -Original Message- From: Pavel Rappo Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 4:29 AM To: core-libs-dev Subject: RFR JDK-8038178: Fix corrupt license header Hi everyone, could you please review my change for JDK-8038178? P.S. Some may find this a

RE: StringBuilder instead of StringBuffer in java.util package

Hi, Paul. Do you want to become an openJDK contributor? I don't see you in the OpenJDK census. If you become a contributor: http://openjdk.java.net/contribute/ then i can directly accept patches from you and commit them with you as the author I'm sure this is what you meant, but just

RE: RFR: 8044059: Memory Leak in Elliptic Curve Private Key Generation

Hi, Jeremy. As an Author, you can create a changeset but you can't push to the repo until you're a Committer. Additional details about the differences between Author and Committer may be found here [1,2]. The diffs to create a changeset are (of course) in your webrev. Your Sponsor can use

RE: RFR: JDK-8044725: Bug in zlib 1.2.5 prevents inflation of some gzipped files

Hi, Sherman. http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sherman/8044725/webrev I took a look at the legal notices in the new files and they all seem fine to me. Thanks, iris -Original Message- From: Xueming Shen Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2014 3:34 PM To: core-libs-dev Subject: RFR: JDK-8044725: Bug

RE: RFR [9] 8046902: Remove sun.misc.Timer

Hi, Chris. Looks great! Long overdue since java.util.Timer was added around Spring 1999 during JDK 1.3 development. Thanks, iris -Original Message- From: Chris Hegarty Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 8:06 AM To: Core-Libs-Dev Subject: RFR [9] 8046902: Remove sun.misc.Timer The type

RE: i18n dev [8] Review request for JEP 127: Improve Locale Data Packaging and Adopt Unicode CLDR Data

Hi, Naoto. Wow. Tons of fantastic work! Looks like many files contain fairly trivial changes related to resources being moved to another package, but there are many others which require more careful review. Scanning the list of files in the webrev, one comment pops to mind. You've made

RE: i18n dev [8] Review request for JEP 127: Improve Locale Data Packaging and Adopt Unicode CLDR Data

Hi, Naoto. Fantastic! Sorry I didn’t catch that 'build-dev' was in the set of reviewers. Thanks for being on top of this. iris -Original Message- From: Naoto Sato Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 11:59 AM To: Iris Clark Cc: Alan Bateman; Java Core Libs; i18n-dev Subject: Re: i18n dev [8

RE: [PATCH FOR REVIEW] 7194032: update tests for upcoming changes for jtreg

Hi, Jon. -Original Message- From: Jonathan Gibbons Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 4:48 PM To: Java Core Libs Subject: [PATCH FOR REVIEW] 7194032: update tests for upcoming changes for jtreg [ ... ] The patch can be seen here:

RE: why LinkedBlockingQueue#poll(int, TimeUnit) is hanging up?

Forwarding to core-libs-dev. iris -Original Message- From: Yegor Bugayenko [mailto:e...@technoparkcorp.com] Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 5:52 AM To: jdk7-...@openjdk.java.net Subject: why LinkedBlockingQueue#poll(int, TimeUnit) is hanging up? I already posted the question here:

RE: 8000269: Cleanup javadoc warnings

Hi, Alan. Looks fantastic! By fixing these javadoc warnings for @throws and @param, I'm assuming that we will be changing the generated javadoc. Are any of these changes significant enough to warrant a ccc? Most of the changes looked fairly innocuous but there are a couple here and there

RE: 7173494: some jdk tests are not run in test/Makefile

The webrev with the proposed changes is here: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~alanb/7173494/webrev/ Looks like a good clean-up. iris

RE: Review/comment needed for the new public java.util.Base64 class

Hi, Sherman. I'm glad to see this coming in. As you said, long overdue. I'm curious. What are the plans are to encourage migration from the JDK private and unsupported sun.misc.BASE64{En,DE}coder classes? Compile-time warning? Documentation? Something else? Thanks, iris -Original

RE: CFV: New core-libs Group Member: Mike Duigou

Vote: yes

RE: CFV: New core-libs Group Member: Stuart Marks

Vote: yes iris

RE: CFV: New core-libs Group Member: Mandy Chung

Vote: yes iris

RE: Review request: JDK-6519127 Vista: user.home property not set correctly

Publically accessible URL for this bug description (since this is going to a public mailing list): http://bugs.sun.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=6519127 -Original Message- From: Alexey Utkin Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 7:31 AM To: core-libs-dev; Alan Bateman Subject: Review request:

RE: 8008290: (profiles) Startup regression due to additional checking of JAR file manifests

Hi, Alan. Very nice. Just curious. How are you testing startup? Custom micro benchmark or are you using something else? iris -Original Message- From: Alan Bateman Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 6:33 AM To: core-libs-dev Subject: 8008290: (profiles) Startup regression due to

RE: 8009645: ClassFileTransformer hooks in ClassLoader no longer required

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~alanb/8009645/webrev/ Wow. I remember when this code was new. So happy to see it going. The changes look great to me! Thanks, iris

RE: JDK1.7u17 Windows 8 compatibility issue: platform LAF does not work

Hi, Heiko. Thanks for your message. Unfortunately our Swing experts are on another list. I'm separately forwarding your mail to the swing-dev mailing list. Best, iris -Original Message- From: Heiko Wagner [mailto:heiko.wag...@apis.de] Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 3:26 AM To:

RE: RFR: JDK-8007799 Base64.getEncoder(0, byte[]) returns encoder that unexpectedly inserts line separator when using some of the encoding methods

The copyright should be 2012, 2013,? I agree. The copyright year should be updated as Sherman indicated. iris -Original Message- From: Xueming Shen Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 8:05 AM To: core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net Subject: Re: RFR: JDK-8007799 Base64.getEncoder(0, byte[])

RE: PING! - RFR 7032154: Performance tuning of sun.misc.FloatingDecimal/FormattedFloatingDecimal

Hi, Brian. This looks fantastic. The changes in Formatter look fine to me. I also took a quick look at FormattedFloatingDecimal and am thrilled. I think you changes have also addressed this bug: 5057835- FormattedFloatingDecimal: massive code duplication in J2SE

RE: RFR 8014383: StringJoiner example in class description not in sync with streams API

Hi, Alan. That's what I remember too. There were just too many objections to completely removing all @author tags. iris -Original Message- From: Alan Bateman Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 5:57 AM To: Paul Sandoz Cc: core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net Libs Subject: Re: RFR 8014383:

RE: 8016217: More javadoc warnings

Hi, Alan. The changes look good to me. One thing caught my eye. In java.util.Calendar, around lines 2681 and later around 2702 you removed the blockquote --- old/src/share/classes/java/util/Calendar.java 2013-06-10 10:37:52.585879060 +0100 +++

RE: RFR 6469160: (fmt) general (%g) formatting of zero (0.0) with precision 0 or 1 throws ArrayOutOfBoundsException

Hi, Brian. Your changes look good to me. Thanks, iris (original code author, not a Reviewer) -Original Message- From: Brian Burkhalter Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 2:13 PM To: Java Core Libs Subject: RFR 6469160: (fmt) general (%g) formatting of zero (0.0) with precision 0 or 1 throws

RE: Java 8 RFR 8019857: Fix doclint errors in java.util.Format*

Looks good to me. iris -Original Message- From: Brian Burkhalter Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 1:02 PM To: Java Core Libs Subject: Java 8 RFR 8019857: Fix doclint errors in java.util.Format* Reviewers: For this issue http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=8019857 (should

RE: RFR: (JAXP) 8020430 : NullPointerException in xml sqe nightly result on 2013-07-12

FWIW, I really like the idea of migrating the jaxp tests to the jaxp repo. I've always thought it odd that the code change and the test for it aren't in the same changeset. Thanks, iris -Original Message- From: huizhe wang Sent: Friday, July 12, 2013 10:10 AM To: Lance Andersen -

RE: RFR: (JAXP) 8020430 : NullPointerException in xml sqe nightly result on 2013-07-12

I'm so thrilled this is happening! Thanks! iris -Original Message- From: huizhe wang Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 1:08 PM To: Iris Clark Cc: Lance Andersen; Core-Libs-Dev Subject: Re: RFR: (JAXP) 8020430 : NullPointerException in xml sqe nightly result on 2013-07-12 Yes, it just

RE: Remove superfluous @test tags from SpliteratorTraversingAndSplittingTest

Hi, Chris. I also noticed this. Running the test explicitly seems to locate just the first @test, while running in a batch (sometimes) finds the two! Not sure why. If you execute jtreg with explicit file name(s), only those files will be search for @test tags. If you use anything else,

RE: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] RFR(L): 8024854: Basic changes and files to build the class library on AIX

Hi, Volker. Just wanted to say that in addition to preparing for JavaOne (next week!), we're also busy fixing bugs in anticipation of JDK 8 ZBB milestone on 24 Oct [1]. Thanks, iris [1]: http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk8/milestones -Original Message- From: Phil Race Sent:

RE: RFR [8024521] (process) Async close issues with Process InputStream

Hi, Rob. jtreg supports identification of manual tests with the /manual option on various actions (see [1] and [2]). I don't know how frequently this option is used within the JDK regression test suite. Thanks, iris [1]: http://openjdk.java.net/jtreg/runtests.html [2]:

RE: Benchmarks for NIO buffer performance

Hi, Mark. You gave me a copy of those test when I was working on this bug: 4463011: (bf) View-buffer bulk get/put operations are slow If I recall correctly, I modified the tests for my particular problem and added them to that bug as attachments. iris -Original Message- From: Mark

RE: CR 6860309 - solaris timing issue on thread startup

Hi. The current practice may be different, but... The original intent was that every bug would either have a unit/regression test or a BugTraq keyword explaining why a test was not provided. See step 6 on this page for the list of valid keywords:

RE: Review request for #6783209

Hi, Brandon. Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bpassani/6783209/1/webrev/ You're revised webrev looks good to me. Thanks, iris

RE: CFV: New core-libs Group Member: Brian Goetz

Vote: yes iris

RE: CFV: New core-libs Group Member: David Holmes

Vote: yes iris

RE: RFR: 6988220: java.lang.ObjectName use of String.intern() causes major performance issues at scale

Hi, Dan. Just FYI: I haven't seen Éamonn's posting come in. Just replies to his posting. This may mean that other comments are stuck in the ether somewhere... I suspect that the OpenJDK list server is again having issues... I just checked the core-libs-dev admin interface to see if

CFV: Project sponsorship: More New I/0 APIs for te Java Platform (JSR-203)

] Only Members of the Core Libraries Group are eligible to vote on this decision. The current Members are: Alan Bateman Christopher Hegarty David Bristor Iris Clark Doug Lea Jeff Nisewanger Joe Darcy Mark Reinhold Martin Buchholz Pete Soper Peter Jones

Re: CFV: Project sponsorship: More New I/0 APIs for te Java Platform (JSR-203)

David Bristor Doug Lea Iris Clark Joe Darcy Mark Reinhold Martin Buchholz Pete Soper Xueming Shen This constitues an absolute majority of the eligible voting members. Thus I am able to immediately render a decision. The Core Libraries Group has decided to sponsor the JSR-203 project

CFV: Josh Bloch to Membership in the Core Libraries Group

are eligible to vote on this decision. The current Members are: Alan Bateman Christopher Hegarty David Bristor Doug Lea Iris Clark Jeff Nisewanger Joe Darcy Mark Reinhold Martin Buchholz Pete Soper Peter Jones Xueming Shen Thanks, iris core-libs-dev

Re: CFV: Josh Bloch to Membership in the Core Libraries Group

Vote: yes

Re: CFV: Josh Bloch to Membership in the Core Libraries Group

vote: yes Iris Clark vote: yes Joe Darcyvote: yes Mark Reinholdvote: yes Martin Buchholz vote: yes Peter Jones vote: yes Xueming Shen vote: yes According to the rules describing group expansion[2

Re: Should Lance be a member of the core libraries group?

Hi, Alan. Before I consider initiating the CFV, I have one question. Is JDBC really considered part of Core Libraries? We want to make sure that Core Libraries does not become the catch-all for APIs that don't belong anywhere else. As far as I know Lance already has all the privileges

RE: RFR (EZ): 8073972: Deprecate Multi-Version Java Launcher (mJRE) for JDK8

Hi, Kumar. The warning looks fine to me. Thanks, iris -Original Message- From: Kumar Srinivasan Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 11:55 AM To: core-libs-dev Subject: RFR (EZ): 8073972: Deprecate Multi-Version Java Launcher (mJRE) for JDK8 Hello, Please review this simple change to the

RE: RFR: JDK-8080679: Include jline in JDK for Java and JavaScript REPLs

My understanding is that the new file won't have old copyright year (2011 in this case). Agreed. Thanks, iris

RE: [verona.stage] RFR 8087203: Adapt Version.java.template to the JEP-223 new version string format

Hi, Alejandro. This cleanup looks good to me. Thanks, iris (not a JDK 9 Reviewer) -Original Message- From: Alejandro E Murillo Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 11:04 AM To: core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net Cc: verona-...@openjdk.java.net Subject: [verona.stage] RFR 8087203: Adapt

RFR (xxs): Fix @bug in sun/misc/Version/Version.java

Hi. Please review the following 1 character change to address this bug: 8136875: Fix @bug in sun/misc/Version/Version.java https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8136875 When 8134365 was fixed, it inadvertently used a `,` in the list of bugids in the @bug line. This is the required

RE: RFR (xxs): Fix @bug in sun/misc/Version/Version.java

Thanks! iris -Original Message- From: Mandy Chung Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 8:54 PM To: Iris Clark Cc: core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net; verona-...@openjdk.java.net Subject: Re: RFR (xxs): Fix @bug in sun/misc/Version/Version.java > On Sep 21, 2015, at 8:51 PM, Iris Clark <i

RE: RFR: 8144533: VersionCheck.java failing after Verona changes in dev

Hi, Kumar. Looks good. iris -Original Message- From: Kumar Srinivasan Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2015 2:16 PM To: Joe Darcy; IRIS,CLARK Cc: core-libs-dev Subject: RFR: 8144533: VersionCheck.java failing after Verona changes in dev Please review fix: diff --git a/test/tools/launcher

RE: RFR (JAXP): 8132091: Clean up JAXP code that has dependency on Java version string

Hi, Joe. This looks great. Thanks for removing this Java version-dependent code. Regards, iris -Original Message- From: huizhe wang Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2015 11:07 AM To: core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net Subject: RFR (JAXP): 8132091: Clean up JAXP code that has dependency on

RE: RFR: 8072379: Implement jdk.Version and jdk.OracleVersion

Hi, Joe. Thanks for the review comments. >>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~irisa/verona/8072379/webrev.1/ > Is the intention that downstream JDK distributions, such as > IcedTea, whether based on OpenJDK or otherwise, would provide > their own specialization of the jdk.Version class? No.

RE: RFR: 8072379: Implement jdk.Version and jdk.OracleVersion

4:18 PM To: Mandy Chung; Iris Clark Cc: verona-...@openjdk.java.net; core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net Subject: Re: RFR: 8072379: Implement jdk.Version and jdk.OracleVersion PPS Perhaps this is already planned as future work, but it might be a kindness to those analyzing JDK version strings

RE: RFR: 8072379: Implement jdk.Version and jdk.OracleVersion

Hi, Roger. Thanks for the feedback. >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~iris/verona/8072379/webrev.1/ > I see the JEP says JDK specific, but does that rule out putting the version > API in a Java.* package? For now, we should avoid including this API in java.*. If for no other reason but

RE: RFR: 8072379: Implement jdk.Version and jdk.OracleVersion

Hi, Magnus. Thanks for the review comments. >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~iris/verona/8072379/webrev.1/ > I thought the end agreement was that the + should always be present even if > build was empty, if opt was present but not pre. That is, "9-foo" > should unambigiously parse as

RE: RFR: 8072379: Implement jdk.Version and jdk.OracleVersion

Hi. Updated webrev and JavaDoc: Webrev http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~iris/verona/8072379/webrev.2/ JavaDoc http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~iris/verona/8072379/doc.2/jdk/Version.html Thanks, iris PS: Please note that I'll be out the week of 21 December, back on 4 January. Access to

RE: RFR: 8072379: Implement jdk.Version and jdk.OracleVersion

bug has been filed to consider that case: 8145793: Provide vendor-specific interpretation of a JDK version string https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8145793 Thanks, iris -Original Message- From: joe darcy Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 3:58 PM To: Mandy Chung; Iris

RE: RFR: 8072379: Implement jdk.Version and jdk.OracleVersion

for equals*() and compareTo*() to take advantage of code re-use. Thanks, iris -Original Message- From: joe darcy Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 5:33 PM To: Magnus Ihse Bursie; Iris Clark; core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net Cc: verona-...@openjdk.java.net Subject: Re: RFR: 8072379: Implement

RE: RFR: 8072379: Implement jdk.Version and jdk.OracleVersion

leased) that javadoc ran on the new files, but the actual bundle surprised me. It is not correct for either jdk.Exported or these classes. I was unable to find a more suitable existing javadoc bundle. Is there one? Regards, iris -Original Message- From: Alan Bateman Sent: Wednesday

RE: RFR: 8072379: Implement jdk.Version and jdk.OracleVersion

/036904.html I'd like to wrap up this work for the initial implementation of jdk.Version soon. Regards, iris -Original Message- From: Iris Clark Sent: Friday, December 18, 2015 1:55 PM To: Joe Darcy; Mandy Chung Cc: core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net; verona-...@openjdk.java.net Subject: RE

RE: RFR: 8072379: Implement jdk.Version and jdk.OracleVersion

new PrivilegedAction<>() { > public String run() { > return System.getProperty("java.version"); > } > })); > } Regards, iris -Original Message- From: Mandy Chung Sent: Tuesday

RE: RFR: 8072379: Implement jdk.Version and jdk.OracleVersion

ev/rev/1bee5efa73e3 -Original Message- From: Alan Bateman Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 7:41 AM To: Iris Clark; core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net; verona-...@openjdk.java.net Subject: Re: RFR: 8072379: Implement jdk.Version and jdk.OracleVersion On 11/01/2016 21:44, Iris Clark wrote: > Hi, Jo

RE: RFR: 8160000: Runtime.version() cause startup regressions in 9+119

Hi, Claes. [ Sorry for the premature send, my keyboard started interpreting my shortcuts in unexpected ways. ] > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~redestad/816/webrev.5/ Nice bugid. Overall, this change looks good. I just have a few concerns. Have you built this forcing alternative build

RE: RFR: 8160000: Runtime.version() cause startup regressions in 9+119

PM To: Mandy Chung Cc: Iris Clark; core-libs-dev; build-dev Subject: Re: RFR: 816: Runtime.version() cause startup regressions in 9+119 Sorry, uploaded the previous diff again by mistake, updated in-place now. On 2016-06-28 00:04, Mandy Chung wrote: > >> On Jun 27, 2016, at 2:

RE: RFR: 8149601 Update references from "1.9" to "9"

Hi, Joe. Thanks for the review. Regards, iris -Original Message- From: huizhe wang Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2016 11:17 AM To: Iris Clark Cc: core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net; verona-...@openjdk.java.net Subject: Re: RFR: 8149601 Update references from "1.9" to &q

RE: RFR: 8149601 Update references from "1.9" to "9"

Hi. A private review comment as noted that I missed a few files in the jaxp repository. The webrev has been updated in place. Thanks, iris -Original Message- From: Iris Clark Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2016 9:13 AM To: core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net; verona-...@openjdk.java.net Cc

RE: RFR: 8149601 Update references from "1.9" to "9"

Hi, Chris. >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~iris/verona/8149601/webrev/ > > Looks fine. Thanks for the Review. Regards, Iris

RE: RFR: 8072379: Implement jdk.Version and jdk.OracleVersion

Hi, Joe. > I suggest changing the class-level javadoc discussing comparisons > to defer to the various compare methods. It would be helpful to > not which compare methods are consistent with equals and which > are not. I've reworked the class and method javadoc for the comparison methods so

RE: RFR: 8072379: Implement jdk.Version and jdk.OracleVersion

key sentence in the description: '+' is required for empty build when OPT is present and PRE is not. "9+-opt" and "9-pre-opt" are legal. "9+" is not. Regards, iris -Original Message- From: Thanh Hong Dai [mailto:hdth...@tma.com.vn] Sent: Monday, February

RE: RFR: 8072379: Implement jdk.Version and jdk.OracleVersion

9.]+)` --- Additional Thanks again for the recommendations. Regards, iris -Original Message- From: Thanh Hong Dai [mailto:hdth...@tma.com.vn] Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 7:53 PM To: Iris Clark; Alan Bateman; core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net; verona-...@openjdk.java.net Subject: RE: R

RE: RFR: 8072379: Implement jdk.Version and jdk.OracleVersion

epository, jdk.dev seems to have the most appropriate name. It appears to only contain jimage so I'm not sure about that module's charter. Thanks, iris -Original Message- From: Alan Bateman Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 12:53 AM To: Iris Clark; Mandy Chung Cc: verona-...@openjdk

RE: RFR: 8072379: Implement jdk.Version and jdk.OracleVersion

ll push the changes for 8072379 soon. Regards, Iris -Original Message- From: Thanh Hong Dai [mailto:hdth...@tma.com.vn] Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 7:08 PM To: Iris Clark; Alan Bateman; core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net Subject: RE: RFR: 8072379: Implement jdk.Version and jdk.Oracl

RE: RFR: 8072379: Implement jdk.Version and jdk.OracleVersion

Hi, Mandy. Thanks so much for pushing the changeset for the initial implementation of jdk.Version! Regards, iris -Original Message- From: Iris Clark Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 1:45 PM To: Iris Clark; Joe Darcy; Mandy Chung; Magnus Ihse Bursie; Roger Riggs; Alan Bateman Cc: core

RFR: 8144062: Determine appropriate module for jdk.Version

Hi, Alan, Mandy, and Mark. After exploring a few module options (jdk.Version, jdk.dev [0]), it looks like the best choice is to move jdk.Version to java.lang.Runtime.Version (a nested class of Runtime). It supports the values returned by the java.{vm.}?version and

RE: RFR [9] 8150162: Move sun.misc.Version to a truly internal package

Hi,Chris. > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~chegar/8150162.01/ Looks good to me. Regards, iris -Original Message- From: Chris Hegarty Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 1:05 AM To: Mandy Chung; Iris Clark Cc: core-libs-dev Subject: Re: RFR [9] 8150162: Move sun.misc.Version to a tr

RE: RFR: 8149601 Update references from "1.9" to "9"

Hi, Kumar. Thank you so much for pushing changesets to fix this bug. Regards, iris -Original Message- From: Iris Clark Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2016 9:13 AM To: core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net; verona-...@openjdk.java.net Cc: Iris Clark; Kumar Srinivasan Subject: RFR: 8149601 Update

RE: RFR [9] 8150163: JarFileSystem support for MRJARs should use the JDK specific Version API

Hi, Chris. I think this change looks fine. I've added a note to JDK-8144062 (module for jdk.Version), indicating that parts of this changeset may need to be updated depending on where jdk.Version lands. Thanks, iris -Original Message- From: Chris Hegarty Sent: Thursday, February 18,

RE: JNI VERSION CHANGE: RFR: 8145098: JNI GetVersion should return JNI_VERSION_9

updating the JNI Spec itself? Thanks, iris -Original Message- From: Alan Bateman Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 11:49 PM To: Rachel Protacio; hotspot-runtime-...@openjdk.java.net; core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net; Iris Clark Subject: Re: JNI VERSION CHANGE: RFR: 8145098: JNI GetVersio

RE: RFR [9] 8150162: Move sun.misc.Version to a truly internal package

e-libs-dev; Iris Clark Subject: RFR [9] 8150162: Move sun.misc.Version to a truly internal package sun.misc.Version is the core libraries part of a private interface with the JVM to query and set specific JVM version and capabilities, as well as being responsible for setting the system prop

RE: RFR [9] 8150162: Move sun.misc.Version to a truly internal package

Hi, Chris. >> I'm not the code maintainer, but I'd consider deprecating them. > Or just removing them. Agreed. iris -Original Message- From: Chris Hegarty Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 9:43 AM To: Iris Clark Cc: core-libs-dev Subject: Re: RFR [9] 8150162: Move sun.mis

RE: RFR [9] 8150162: Move sun.misc.Version to a truly internal package

Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 10:48 AM To: Iris Clark Cc: Mandy Chung; Chris Hegarty; core-libs-dev Subject: Re: RFR [9] 8150162: Move sun.misc.Version to a truly internal package > On Feb 19, 2016, at 9:52 AM, Iris Clark <iris.cl...@oracle.com> wrote: > > Hi, Chris. > >>&g

RFR: 8149601 Update references from "1.9" to "9"

Hi. Please review the following changes to the jaxp and jdk repositories to fix a few additional references to "1.9". Bug 8149601 Update references from "1.9" to "9" https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8149601 Webrev http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~iris/verona/8149601/webrev/ This is

RE: RFR(XXS): 8149519: Investigate implementation of java.specification.version

Hi, Volker. Sorry for the delay. I agree that the old implementation isn't quite correct. I can't see us potentially having a JCP MR for a security or patch release (9.0.0.X and 9.0.X respectively). I could see a MR for an very unusual minor release (9.X). If we had an MR there's no

RE: RFR(XXS): 8149519: Investigate implementation of java.specification.version

gid earlier in this thread). That absolutely must be completed before Feature Complete next month. Thanks, iris -Original Message- From: Volker Simonis [mailto:volker.simo...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 1:28 AM To: Iris Clark Cc: Java Core Libs; verona-...@openjdk.java.net; A

RE: RFR: 8144062: Move jdk.Version to java.lang.Runtime.Version

Hi, Mandy. Thank you so much for pushing the changesets [0,1] for this bug. Regards, Iris [0]: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/dev/jdk/rev/3976fadb091d [1]: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/dev/langtools/rev/2a49d47a37d8

RE: RFR: 8144062: Move jdk.Version to java.lang.Runtime.Version

154 8600 171312 total -Original Message- From: Remi Forax [mailto:fo...@univ-mlv.fr] Sent: Friday, May 13, 2016 4:32 PM To: Iris Clark Cc: Java Core Libs; compiler-...@openjdk.java.net; verona-...@openjdk.java.net Subject: Re: RFR: 8144062: Move jdk.Version to java.lang.Runtime.Version

RFR: 8144062: Move jdk.Version to java.lang.Runtime.Version

Hi. Reviving this work from a few months back. Please review the following changes to move jdk.Version to jdk.lang.Runtime.Version. Bug 8144062: Move jdk.Version to java.lang.Runtime.Version https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8144062 webrev

RE: RFR(s) 8161236: Runtime.Version.{compareTo, equals}IgnoreOpt should be renamed

Hi, Kumar. Thank you very much for pushing the changesets to resolve this bug! Regards. iris From: Iris Clark Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 1:11 PM To: Kumar Srinivasan; Java Core Libs; compiler-...@openjdk.java.net; kulla-...@openjdk.java.net Subject: RFR(s) 8161236

RFR(s) 8161236: Runtime.Version.{compareTo, equals}IgnoreOpt should be renamed

Hi. Please review changes in jdk and langtools (module jdk.jshell) to address the following bug: 8161236: Runtime.Version.{compareTo,equals}IgnoreOpt should be renamed https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8161236 Webrev:

RE: RFR(s) 8161236: Runtime.Version.{compareTo, equals}IgnoreOpt should be renamed

Hi, Robert. Thanks for Reviewing! iris -Original Message- From: Robert Field Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 6:16 PM To: Iris Clark; Kumar Srinivasan; Java Core Libs; compiler-...@openjdk.java.net; kulla-...@openjdk.java.net Subject: Re: RFR(s) 8161236: Runtime.Version.{compareTo

RE: RFR(s) 8161236: Runtime.Version.{compareTo, equals}IgnoreOpt should be renamed

Hi, Alan. Thanks! iris -Original Message- From: Alan Bateman Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 4:36 AM To: Iris Clark; Kumar Srinivasan; Java Core Libs; compiler-...@openjdk.java.net; kulla-...@openjdk.java.net Subject: Re: RFR(s) 8161236: Runtime.Version.{compareTo, equals}IgnoreOpt

RE: RFR(S): 8160564: TEST: Add a test to check the implementation of VersionProps.versionNumbers()

Hi. >> Please find the new webrev at: >> >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~simonis/webrevs/2016/8160564.v2/ > > +1 > >> Any other comments? > Only to note that this adds a validation check that we don't have > trailing zeros, which I was recently made aware of is being > reconsidered, see

RE: RFR: 8162439: Runtime.Version.parse needs fast-path for major versions

Hi, Claes. > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~redestad/8162439/webrev.02/ This looks good. Thanks, Iris

RE: RFR(xs): 8165636: add removal text to Runtime.traceInstructions/MethodCalls deprecation text

Hi, Stuart. These look fine to me. Thanks, Iris -Original Message- From: Stuart Marks Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 2:29 PM To: core-libs-dev Subject: RFR(xs): 8165636: add removal text to Runtime.traceInstructions/MethodCalls deprecation text Hi all, Please review this very

RE: RFR: 8164982 Fix legal notices in java/lang, java/net, java/util tests.

Hi, Shura. > Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~shurailine/8164982/webrev.00/ The problem noted in [3] is not present in the latest webrev. The changes look fine with me. Thanks, iris -Original Message- From: Alexandre (Shura) Iline Sent: Monday, August 29, 2016 3:16 PM To:

RFR: 8160954: (spec) Runtime.Version regex and $PRE/$OPT issues

Hi. Please review changes to address the following closely related bugs: 8160954: (spec) Runtime.Version regex and $PRE/$OPT issues https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8160954 8148822: (spec) Regex in Runtime.Version and JEP 223 should match

RE: [9] RFR(XXXXS): 8160999: GPL header missing comma in year

Hi. Your change looks fine to me. Thanks, iris -Original Message- From: Aleks Efimov Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 1:48 PM To: core-libs-dev Subject: [9] RFR(S): 8160999: GPL header missing comma in year Hi,

RE: A couple of questions on 8160954: (spec) Runtime.Version regex and $PRE/$OPT issues

Hi, Pavel. You should read this thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2016-October/044277.html Thanks, iris -Original Message- From: Pavel Rappo Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 2:22 PM To: core-libs-dev Subject: A couple of

RE: RFR: 8176508 Update JAX-WS RI integration to latest version

Hi, Bill. >> 59 * (Where java.home is the value of the "java.home" System >> property >> 60 * and conf is the directory named "conf" if it exists, >> 61 * otherwise the directory named "lib"; the "conf" directory was >> 62 * introduced in JDK 1.9.) In line 62, can we change "JDK

RE: 8193758: Update copyright headers of files in src tree that are missing "Classpath" exception

Hi, Alan. > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~alanb/8193758/webrev/ This looks good. Thanks for taking care of this. Iris

  1   2   3   4   >