Igor, let me capture our offline conversation.
The design you are suggesting is aimed to allow to chain methods which check
different outputs: stderr, stdout and other possible artifacts of a process
execution. To that end,
1. the method which you call stdout(Consumer) should really the
called
Hi Shura,
> Quite recently the suggested improvement was discussed with a few folks from
> hotspot team where the same or a similar implementation could be reused. I am
> CCing Igor and Dima to comment.
Right, Dima and I would really love to reuse part of this library and that’s
more important
Hi Igor,
thanks for the good summary of our discussion.
Shura,
I agree with Igor position. To implement VM Launching specific (Verundy
project) we don't need any Task functionality, so I don't have any
comments on that.
VM and JDK have a lot of common in dealing with output. Representation
> On Mar 8, 2017, at 5:21 PM, Alexandre (Shura) Iline
> wrote:
>> Also specifying the target explicitly makes the test clearer what it does.
>>
>> .addExports(“java.base/jdk.internal.reflect”, “ALL-UNNAMED”)
>
> Makes sense.
>
> I hope though that you are not against having a constant for “AL
Thank you, Mandy!
Comments inline.
> On Mar 6, 2017, at 6:00 PM, Mandy Chung wrote:
>
>
>> On Mar 6, 2017, at 5:27 PM, Alexandre (Shura) Iline
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Could you please review the suggested fox for:
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8159523
>>
>> There has been
> On Mar 6, 2017, at 5:27 PM, Alexandre (Shura) Iline
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Could you please review the suggested fox for:
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8159523
>
> There has been a bit of discussion on jigsaw-dev, but it perhaps make sense
> to include core-libs-dev.
>
> There
Alan,
For me, having module and package parameters separate makes it a lot easier:
public JavaTask addExports(String module, String package, String… targetModules)
Consider this:
.addExports(JAVA_BASE, JDK_MISC, ALL_UNNAMED)
where, needless to say, JAVA_BASE and JDK_MISC are constants defined in
On 01/11/2016 10:23, Alan Bateman wrote:
:
.addExports("java.base", "jdk.internal.misc=ALL-UNNAMED")
.addOpens("java.base", "jdk.internal.misc=m1,m2")
Oops, a typo here, I meant this of course:
.addExports("java.base/jdk.internal.misc", "ALL-UNNAMED")
.addOpens("java.base/jdk.internal.misc",
On 31/10/2016 21:39, Alexandre (Shura) Iline wrote:
:
Which syntax would be better?
1. Requiring explicit ALL-UNNAMED
.addExports("java.base", “jdk.internal.misc”, ALL_UNNAMED)
.addExports("java.base", "jdk.internal.reflect”, ALL_UNNAMED)
2. Treating ALL-UNNAMED as a default
.addExports("java.
Alan,
> On Oct 26, 2016, at 12:53 PM, Alexandre (Shura) Iline
> wrote:
>
>
>> On Oct 26, 2016, at 12:00 PM, Alan Bateman wrote:
>>
>> On 26/10/2016 19:33, Alexandre (Shura) Iline wrote:
>>
>>> :
>>> Like this:
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~shurailine/8159523/webrev.04/
>>>
>> It's all su
> On Oct 26, 2016, at 12:00 PM, Alan Bateman wrote:
>
> On 26/10/2016 19:33, Alexandre (Shura) Iline wrote:
>
>> :
>> Like this:
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~shurailine/8159523/webrev.04/
>>
> It's all subjective but I prefer:
>
> .addExports("java.base/jdk.internal.misc=ALL-UNNAMED")
> .ad
On 26/10/2016 19:33, Alexandre (Shura) Iline wrote:
:
Like this:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~shurailine/8159523/webrev.04/
It's all subjective but I prefer:
.addExports("java.base/jdk.internal.misc=ALL-UNNAMED")
.addExports("java.base/jdk.internal.reflect=ALL-UNNAMED")
to:
.addExports("java
> On Oct 22, 2016, at 3:06 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
>
> On 21/10/2016 22:07, Alexandre (Shura) Iline wrote:
>
>> Alan,
>>
>> This is a newer version:
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~shurailine/8159523/webrev.03/
>>
> The usages looks good in this version, would be interesting to get other
> op
> On Oct 22, 2016, at 3:06 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
>
> On 21/10/2016 22:07, Alexandre (Shura) Iline wrote:
>
>> Alan,
>>
>> This is a newer version:
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~shurailine/8159523/webrev.03/
>>
> The usages looks good in this version, would be interesting to get other
> op
On 21/10/2016 22:07, Alexandre (Shura) Iline wrote:
Alan,
This is a newer version:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~shurailine/8159523/webrev.03/
The usages looks good in this version, would be interesting to get other
opinions (although this isn't specifically module options, this is
really more
Alan,
This is a newer version:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~shurailine/8159523/webrev.03/
Shura
> On Oct 17, 2016, at 12:16 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
>
> On 14/10/2016 23:26, Alexandre (Shura) Iline wrote:
>
>> Could you please take another look?
>>
>> I have added more options, and fixed other
On 14/10/2016 23:26, Alexandre (Shura) Iline wrote:
Could you please take another look?
I have added more options, and fixed other things you have pointed out. I have
also picked up a couple more tests to cover the newly added methods.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~shurailine/8159523/webrev.02/
Could you please take another look?
I have added more options, and fixed other things you have pointed out. I have
also picked up a couple more tests to cover the newly added methods.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~shurailine/8159523/webrev.02/
Shura
> On Oct 10, 2016, at 2:54 AM, Alan Bateman w
> On Oct 11, 2016, at 1:35 PM, Alexandre (Shura) Iline
> wrote:
>
>
>> On Oct 10, 2016, at 2:54 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
>>
>> On 07/10/2016 21:24, Alexandre (Shura) Iline wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Please review a fix for https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8159523
>>>
>>> To recap wh
> On Oct 10, 2016, at 2:54 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
>
> On 07/10/2016 21:24, Alexandre (Shura) Iline wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Please review a fix for https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8159523
>>
>> To recap what has happened in the past.
>>
>> 1. An attempt was made to enhance jdk.testlib
On 07/10/2016 21:24, Alexandre (Shura) Iline wrote:
Hi,
Please review a fix for https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8159523
To recap what has happened in the past.
1. An attempt was made to enhance jdk.testlibrary.ProcessTools class to support
some filtering java and VM options. That im
21 matches
Mail list logo
