Re: RFR: 8139430

Hi Shura, I have pushed the changeset to jdk9/dev. Mandy > On Nov 19, 2015, at 8:40 AM, Alexandre (Shura) Iline > wrote: > > Yes, sorry. > > Since the methods do not have any work to complete before interrupting and > also methods are not used anywhere

Re: RFR: 8139430

On 19/11/2015 16:40, Alexandre (Shura) Iline wrote: Yes, sorry. Since the methods do not have any work to complete before interrupting and also methods are not used anywhere currently, I assume re-throwing the InterruptedException is a better choice.

Re: RFR: 8139430

Yes, sorry. Since the methods do not have any work to complete before interrupting and also methods are not used anywhere currently, I assume re-throwing the InterruptedException is a better choice.

Re: RFR: 8139430

> On Nov 16, 2015, at 5:38 AM, Alan Bateman wrote: > > > > On 16/11/2015 13:01, Alexandre (Shura) Iline wrote: >> V6: >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~shurailine/8139430/webrev.06/ >> >> > This looks okay to me. For completeness then I assume the >

Re: RFR: 8139430

On 16/11/2015 13:01, Alexandre (Shura) Iline wrote: V6: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~shurailine/8139430/webrev.06/ This looks okay to me. For completeness then I assume the THreadMXBeanTool.waitUntilXXX methods should re-assert the interrupt status if interrupted when waiting. -Alan

Re: RFR: 8139430

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

Re: RFR: 8139430

V6: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~shurailine/8139430/webrev.06/ 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 09/11/2015 19:12,

Re: RFR: 8139430

> On Nov 10, 2015, at 11:42 PM, Alan Bateman wrote: > > > > On 09/11/2015 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 >>

Re: RFR: 8139430

> On Nov 10, 2015, at 9:04 PM, Mandy Chung wrote: > > Hi Shura, > > Thanks for doing it and it’s good to see the unnecessary dependency to > java.management eliminated. > > The new jdk.testlibrary.management package name is fine. It’s okay to keep > the class name

Re: RFR: 8139430

> On Nov 10, 2015, at 10:11 AM, Alexandre (Shura) Iline > wrote: > >> >> On Nov 10, 2015, at 9:04 PM, Mandy Chung wrote: >> >> Hi Shura, >> >> Thanks for doing it and it’s good to see the unnecessary dependency to >> java.management

Re: RFR: 8139430

Hi Shura, Thanks for doing it and it’s good to see the unnecessary dependency to java.management eliminated. The new jdk.testlibrary.management package name is fine. It’s okay to keep the class name InputArguments as Jaroslav suggests and it’s easier to tell what this class is about. There

Re: RFR: 8139430

On 09/11/2015 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/ Shura I skimmed through the webrev

Re: RFR: 8139430

> On Nov 10, 2015, at 12:42 PM, Alan Bateman wrote: > > Would it break many tests if getProcessId were changed to return long to > match ProcessHandle::getPid? There are not small number of tests doing Integer.toString(ProcessTools.getProcessId())); Most of them

Re: RFR: 8139430

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/ Shura > On Nov 9, 2015, at 8:54 PM, Alexandre (Shura) Iline >