On 16.11.2015 14:01, Alexandre (Shura) Iline wrote:
V6:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~shurailine/8139430/webrev.06/
Looks good!
Thanks,
-JB-
Thank you.
Shura
On Nov 11, 2015, at 7:41 PM, Alexandre (Shura) Iline
wrote:
On Nov 10, 2015, at 11:42 PM, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 09/11/20
Hi,
On 9.11.2015 19:12, Alexandre (Shura) Iline wrote:
Hi
I have just realized that an NPE could also be possible in
test/lib/testlibrary/jdk/testlibrary/Platform.java so it should be updated also:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~shurailine/8139430/webrev.04/
As for the original (03) webrev - I
On 30.10.2015 18:02, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 30/10/2015 15:29, Vincent Privat wrote:
> :
>
> Concerning Jigsaw:
> - We have reported 3 bugs. All made it to the public JIRA: 8138878,
> 8140477, 8140481. The second one is a bit problematic for our tests as
> it basically kills our Jenkins instance
On 15.10.2015 21:32, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 15/10/2015 16:55, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
Any objections to changing the annotation name to @ConstructorMapping
to make it better distinguishable from
@java.beans.ConstructorProperties ?
Not from me. Do you mind updating the webrev so that we can
On 16.10.2015 07:13, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 16/10/2015 06:02, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
Please, review this critical backout request
Issue : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8139725
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jbachorik/8139725/webrev.00
By mistake a partial fix for JDK-7199353
Please, review this critical backout request
Issue : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8139725
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jbachorik/8139725/webrev.00
By mistake a partial fix for JDK-7199353 has been pushed recently. It
needs to be backed out ASAP.
Thanks,
-JB-
On 14.10.2015 17:11, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
On 14.10.2015 16:52, Mandy Chung wrote:
On Oct 14, 2015, at 7:25 AM, Alan Bateman
wrote:
Hm, shouldn't we name the new annotation differently then?
@ConstructorMapping ? It is not mandatory that we keep the actual
name - we are changin
On 14.10.2015 16:52, Mandy Chung wrote:
On Oct 14, 2015, at 7:25 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
Hm, shouldn't we name the new annotation differently then? @ConstructorMapping
? It is not mandatory that we keep the actual name - we are changing the
package anyway ...
This may have been discussed
On 14.10.2015 15:24, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 14/10/2015 10:34, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
Round 2 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jbachorik/7199353/webrev.01
Changes against round 1:
* @javax.management.ConstructorProperties (was
@javax.management.annotation.ConstructorProperties)
* diff
On 8.10.2015 13:49, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
Please, review the following change
Issue : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-7199353
Round 2 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jbachorik/7199353/webrev.01
Changes against round 1:
* @javax.management.ConstructorProperties (was
On 9.10.2015 20:33, Alex Buckley wrote:
On 10/9/2015 1:03 AM, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
Well, if anything the @CP annotation is related to
javax.management.openmbean package. All the OpenType and CompositeData
definitions are in this package. @CP annotation is used to influence the
way a
On 9.10.2015 20:50, Mandy Chung wrote:
On 10/09/2015 11:33 AM, Alex Buckley wrote:
On 10/9/2015 1:03 AM, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
Well, if anything the @CP annotation is related to
javax.management.openmbean package. All the OpenType and CompositeData
definitions are in this package. @CP
On 9.10.2015 17:36, Peter Levart wrote:
On 10/09/2015 02:30 PM, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
To answer my question: "How is one supposed to compile an MXBean that
would work in JDK8- and at the same time in JDK9+ without java.desktop
in the module graph?"
Annotate the constructor wit
On 9.10.2015 14:21, Peter Levart wrote:
On 10/09/2015 02:07 PM, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
On 9.10.2015 13:42, Peter Levart wrote:
Hi,
I don't think it has been mentioned before, but is
@ConstructorProperties still necessary in JDK8+ ? Couldn't the
j.l.r.Constructor#getParameters
d to confusion when the reconstruction
process would fail even though the parameters are named correctly in the
source.
-JB-
What do you think?
Regards, Peter
On 10/08/2015 01:49 PM, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
Please, review the following change
Issue : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse
On 8.10.2015 21:29, Alex Buckley wrote:
On 10/8/2015 11:56 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 08/10/2015 19:41, Alex Buckley wrote:
Also, this annotation type introduces a new package,
javax.management.annotation. I support *.annotation packages in
general (e.g. to group a growing number of exciting an
On 8.10.2015 14:15, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 08/10/2015 12:49, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
Please, review the following change
Issue : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-7199353
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jbachorik/7199353/webrev.00/top
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jbachorik/7199353
Please, review the following change
Issue : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-7199353
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jbachorik/7199353/webrev.00/top
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jbachorik/7199353/webrev.00/jdk
Issue description:
"MXBean currently supports model-specific types
18 matches
Mail list logo
