Re: RFR 8158123: NPE when the annotations is used in export-to of module-info

Thank you for your review. I've pushed: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/dev/langtools/rev/7eb5647e8105 Regards, shinyafox(Shinya Yoshida) 2016-06-11 1:46 GMT+09:00 Maurizio Cimadamore < maurizio.cimadam...@oracle.com>: > Looks good! > > Thanks > Maurizio > > > On 10/06/16 16:58, ShinyaYoshida wr

Re: Review Request JDK-8136930 Examine implications for custom launchers, equivalent of java -X options in particular

2016/6/10 7:00:55 -0700, coleen.phillim...@oracle.com: > ... > > The difference between these module options and the other non-conforming > options is that the others actually do something in the JVM. The module > options only set properties for the JDK. So we have code in the JVM > that onl

Re: Review Request JDK-8136930 Examine implications for custom launchers, equivalent of java -X options in particular

On 6/8/16 7:42 PM, Mandy Chung wrote: On Jun 8, 2016, at 3:37 PM, Coleen Phillimore wrote: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mchung/jdk9/webrevs/8136930/webrev.01/jdk/src/java.base/share/classes/jdk/internal/module/ModuleBootstrap.java.udiff.html + /** + * Gets and remove the named system propert

Re: Review Request JDK-8136930 Examine implications for custom launchers, equivalent of java -X options in particular

On 6/10/16 10:52 AM, Alan Bateman wrote: On 10/06/2016 15:00, Coleen Phillimore wrote: : The difference between these module options and the other non-conforming options is that the others actually do something in the JVM. The module options only set properties for the JDK. So we have

Re: Review Request JDK-8136930 Examine implications for custom launchers, equivalent of java -X options in particular

On 6/10/16 4:21 PM, Alan Bateman wrote: On 10/06/2016 19:25, Coleen Phillimore wrote: : Yes, I agree, it was the right choice to keep most of the implementation in the jdk libraries and only expose the jvm to what it needs to know. The JVM doesn't need to know these options. I assume th

Re: RFR: 8158272 & 8158468 (tools/jlink/plugins/IncludeLocalesPluginTest.java bug fixes)

> On Jun 10, 2016, at 12:08 AM, Masayoshi Okutsu > wrote: > > (re-sending to include jigsaw-dev) > > Hi, > > Please review fixes for 8158272 and 8158468. The test had several problems. > > : > Webrev: > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~okutsu/9/8158272.8158468/webrev.00 It’s good that you replac

Re: Review Request JDK-8136930 Examine implications for custom launchers, equivalent of java -X options in particular

On 10/06/2016 19:25, Coleen Phillimore wrote: : Yes, I agree, it was the right choice to keep most of the implementation in the jdk libraries and only expose the jvm to what it needs to know. The JVM doesn't need to know these options. I assume that the JDK passes this information to the J

Re: Review Request JDK-8136930 Examine implications for custom launchers, equivalent of java -X options in particular

> On Jun 10, 2016, at 7:18 AM, Coleen Phillimore > wrote: > >> Just to put more context on this patch. We are cleaning up the command line >> option handling and trying to get things more consistent. It will take a >> number of steps. One of the patches to proceed this one is an entry point

Re: Review Request JDK-8136930 Examine implications for custom launchers, equivalent of java -X options in particular

> On Jun 10, 2016, at 12:53 PM, Alan Bateman wrote: > > On 10/06/2016 17:38, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote: > >> >> I just re-read this... >> >> A space in the VM option? As in '-addmods'? That's a >> completely new idea for VM options processing and one that we took >> great pains to avoid when

Re: Review Request JDK-8136930 Examine implications for custom launchers, equivalent of java -X options in particular

On 10/06/2016 17:38, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote: I just re-read this... A space in the VM option? As in '-addmods'? That's a completely new idea for VM options processing and one that we took great pains to avoid when '-agentlib' and '-agentpath' were added back in the JDK1.5 timeframe. Alan,

Re: Review Request JDK-8136930 Examine implications for custom launchers, equivalent of java -X options in particular

On 10 Jun 2016, at 21:13, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote: > > On 6/10/16 1:08 PM, Robert Gibson wrote: >> On 10 Jun 2016, at 18:38, Daniel D. Daugherty >> wrote: >>> On 6/10/16 8:52 AM, Alan Bateman wrote: On 10/06/2016 15:00, Coleen Phillimore wrote: > : > > The difference

RFR JDK-8159206 - All jlink tests failing

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jlaskey/8159206/webrev/index.html https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8159206

Re: Review Request JDK-8136930 Examine implications for custom launchers, equivalent of java -X options in particular

On 6/10/16 1:08 PM, Robert Gibson wrote: On 10 Jun 2016, at 18:38, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote: On 6/10/16 8:52 AM, Alan Bateman wrote: On 10/06/2016 15:00, Coleen Phillimore wrote: : The difference between these module options and the other non-conforming options is that the others actuall

Re: Review Request JDK-8136930 Examine implications for custom launchers, equivalent of java -X options in particular

On 10 Jun 2016, at 18:38, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote: > > On 6/10/16 8:52 AM, Alan Bateman wrote: >> On 10/06/2016 15:00, Coleen Phillimore wrote: >> >>> : >>> >>> The difference between these module options and the other non-conforming >>> options is that the others actually do something in t

Re: RFR 8158123: NPE when the annotations is used in export-to of module-info

Looks good! Thanks Maurizio On 10/06/16 16:58, ShinyaYoshida wrote: Hi Maurizio, Thank you for your review! I've just updated the webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~shinyafox/jigsaw/8158123/webrev.01/ In this webrev, I've

Re: Review Request JDK-8136930 Examine implications for custom launchers, equivalent of java -X options in particular

On 6/10/16 8:52 AM, Alan Bateman wrote: On 10/06/2016 15:00, Coleen Phillimore wrote: : The difference between these module options and the other non-conforming options is that the others actually do something in the JVM. The module options only set properties for the JDK. So we have cod

Re: Review Request JDK-8136930 Examine implications for custom launchers, equivalent of java -X options in particular

On 10/06/2016 15:18, Coleen Phillimore wrote: On 6/4/16 7:46 AM, Alan Bateman wrote: On 04/06/2016 12:10, Remi Forax wrote: Hi Mandy, did you think about using -J for specifying either VM options or module options (the user really don't care) for custom launchers like we use -J to specif

Re: Review Request JDK-8136930 Examine implications for custom launchers, equivalent of java -X options in particular

On 6/10/16 9:31 AM, Mandy Chung wrote: Harold has incorporated feedback from David, Coleen, Lois and others and updated webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mchung/jdk9/webrevs/8136930/webrev.02/ The only change compared to webrev.01 is in hotspot arguments.{cpp,hpp} and a new ModuleOptions

Re: RFR: 8158272 & 8158468 (tools/jlink/plugins/IncludeLocalesPluginTest.java bug fixes)

+1. Thanks for fixing those issues. Naoto On 6/10/16 12:08 AM, Masayoshi Okutsu wrote: (re-sending to include jigsaw-dev) Hi, Please review fixes for 8158272 and 8158468. The test had several problems. - A child process doesn't inherit IO. Any outputs from the child process are not logged. -

Re: RFR 8158123: NPE when the annotations is used in export-to of module-info

Hi Maurizio, Thank you for your review! I've just updated the webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~shinyafox/jigsaw/8158123/webrev.01/ In this webrev, I've tried to check that the annotation is not permitted at any of the module names or the package names in module-info. Please review this again.

Re: Review Request JDK-8136930 Examine implications for custom launchers, equivalent of java -X options in particular

Harold has incorporated feedback from David, Coleen, Lois and others and updated webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mchung/jdk9/webrevs/8136930/webrev.02/ The only change compared to webrev.01 is in hotspot arguments.{cpp,hpp} and a new ModuleOptionsTest.java. I see concerns from Coleen on

Re: Review Request JDK-8136930 Examine implications for custom launchers, equivalent of java -X options in particular

On 10/06/2016 15:00, Coleen Phillimore wrote: : The difference between these module options and the other non-conforming options is that the others actually do something in the JVM. The module options only set properties for the JDK. So we have code in the JVM that only affects the JDK.

Re: Review Request JDK-8136930 Examine implications for custom launchers, equivalent of java -X options in particular

On 6/9/16 2:26 AM, Alan Bateman wrote: On 08/06/2016 23:37, Coleen Phillimore wrote: : I have to ask why Hotspot convention was violated with this new option syntax? These options don't start with -X and the values aren't specified as : separators like the rest? Like -Xshare:{dump,auto,o

Re: RFR: 8158272 & 8158468 (tools/jlink/plugins/IncludeLocalesPluginTest.java bug fixes)

On 10/06/2016 08:08, Masayoshi Okutsu wrote: (re-sending to include jigsaw-dev) Hi, Please review fixes for 8158272 and 8158468. The test had several problems. - A child process doesn't inherit IO. Any outputs from the child process are not logged. - The exit code of a child process is ig

hg: jigsaw/jake/langtools: 15 new changesets

Changeset: bf5a081596fb Author:robilad Date: 2016-05-30 16:36 +0200 URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jigsaw/jake/langtools/rev/bf5a081596fb 8154469: Update FSF address Summary: Updated Free Software Foundation's mailing address in LICENSE Reviewed-by: rriggs, shade ! LICENSE Change

hg: jigsaw/jake: 9 new changesets

Changeset: 6a78ef1d1e58 Author:robilad Date: 2016-05-30 16:17 +0200 URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jigsaw/jake/rev/6a78ef1d1e58 8154469: Update FSF address Summary: Updated Free Software Foundation's mailing address in LICENSE Reviewed-by: rriggs, shade ! LICENSE Changeset: d2027

hg: jigsaw/jake/jaxp: 6 new changesets

Changeset: c6fb5e78e1c1 Author:robilad Date: 2016-05-30 16:28 +0200 URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jigsaw/jake/jaxp/rev/c6fb5e78e1c1 8154469: Update FSF address Summary: Updated Free Software Foundation's mailing address in LICENSE Reviewed-by: rriggs, shade ! LICENSE Changeset:

hg: jigsaw/jake/corba: 4 new changesets

Changeset: dfc73c951df8 Author:robilad Date: 2016-05-30 16:23 +0200 URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jigsaw/jake/corba/rev/dfc73c951df8 8154469: Update FSF address Summary: Updated Free Software Foundation's mailing address in LICENSE Reviewed-by: rriggs, shade ! LICENSE Changeset:

hg: jigsaw/jake/hotspot: 106 new changesets

Changeset: b6ba1b245c96 Author:robilad Date: 2016-05-30 16:25 +0200 URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jigsaw/jake/hotspot/rev/b6ba1b245c96 8154469: Update FSF address Summary: Updated Free Software Foundation's mailing address in LICENSE Reviewed-by: rriggs, shade ! LICENSE Changese

hg: jigsaw/jake/jaxws: 5 new changesets

Changeset: 2b73a2c55ee5 Author:robilad Date: 2016-05-30 16:31 +0200 URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jigsaw/jake/jaxws/rev/2b73a2c55ee5 8154469: Update FSF address Summary: Updated Free Software Foundation's mailing address in LICENSE Reviewed-by: rriggs, shade ! LICENSE Changeset:

hg: jigsaw/jake/nashorn: 10 new changesets

Changeset: e87aacc2292d Author:robilad Date: 2016-05-30 16:41 +0200 URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jigsaw/jake/nashorn/rev/e87aacc2292d 8154469: Update FSF address Summary: Updated Free Software Foundation's mailing address in LICENSE Reviewed-by: rriggs, shade ! LICENSE Changese

RFR: 8158272 & 8158468 (tools/jlink/plugins/IncludeLocalesPluginTest.java bug fixes)

(re-sending to include jigsaw-dev) Hi, Please review fixes for 8158272 and 8158468. The test had several problems. - A child process doesn't inherit IO. Any outputs from the child process are not logged. - The exit code of a child process is ignored. The exit code needs to be checked by the t