My mistake, I mistook it for the spec table.
On 4/1/20 12:06 PM, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 01/04/2020 17:03, Roger Riggs wrote:
Hi,
Does dropping the "The following properties are guaranteed to be
defined:"
would seem to be a spec change.
It's a comment on a private field, there's no change
t
*Cc:* build-dev
*Subject:* Re: RFR (S): 8241947: Minor comment fixes for system
property handling
On 3/31/20 7:56 AM, Langer, Christoph wrote:
Hi,
please review a small fix that updates two comments.
The first one, in make/autoconf/spec.gmk.in, is probably quite old. It talks
On 01/04/2020 17:03, Roger Riggs wrote:
Hi,
Does dropping the "The following properties are guaranteed to be
defined:"
would seem to be a spec change.
It's a comment on a private field, there's no change to the
getProperties spec.
-Alan
Hi,
Does dropping the "The following properties are guaranteed to be defined:"
would seem to be a spec change.
Just linking to the properties page makes no such guarantee.
Roger
On 4/1/20 10:45 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 31/03/2020 19:57, Langer, Christoph wrote:
Hi Mandy,
this is a good
Thanks for the review, Alan.
I'll push it then.
Best regards
Christoph
> -Original Message-
> From: Alan Bateman
> Sent: Mittwoch, 1. April 2020 16:46
> To: Langer, Christoph ; Mandy Chung
> ; core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net
> Cc: build-dev
> Subject: Re: RF
On 31/03/2020 19:57, Langer, Christoph wrote:
Hi Mandy,
this is a good suggestion. The listing of system properties at the props field
declaration seems somewhat redundant, given that it already exists more exactly
and with API normativity in the doc of System::getProperties().
So what do
://cr.openjdk.java.net/~clanger/webrevs/8241947.1/ ?
Thanks
Christoph
From: Mandy Chung
Sent: Dienstag, 31. März 2020 19:34
To: Langer, Christoph ; core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net
Cc: build-dev
Subject: Re: RFR (S): 8241947: Minor comment fixes for system property handling
On 3/31/20 7:56 AM, Langer, Christoph
Hi Magnus,
> From a build perspective this looks fine.
Thanks for the review.
> But it seems you are changing the interface for java.lang.System. Don't
> you need a CSR for that? Or is your claim that the interface was indeed
> changed by JDK-8197927, and it is a bug that the documentation was
On 3/31/20 7:56 AM, Langer, Christoph wrote:
Hi,
please review a small fix that updates two comments.
The first one, in make/autoconf/spec.gmk.in, is probably quite old. It talks about handling of a property
"vm.vendor" in VersionProps.java.template. However, there is no property
From a build perspective this looks fine.
But it seems you are changing the interface for java.lang.System. Don't
you need a CSR for that? Or is your claim that the interface was indeed
changed by JDK-8197927, and it is a bug that the documentation was not
updated to match this?
/Magnus
On
10 matches
Mail list logo
