Thanks. All suggestions accepted.
--Max
> On Apr 16, 2020, at 2:40 AM, Sean Mullan wrote:
>
> On 4/14/20 3:27 AM, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> After some discussion, we decide to keep the classes in JDK 15 but add a
>> `forRemoval=true` argument. Related jarsigner help screen and warning
>> message
> On Apr 16, 2020, at 9:19 AM, Weijun Wang wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Apr 15, 2020, at 11:29 PM, Sean Mullan wrote:
>>
>> On 4/15/20 3:30 AM, Weijun Wang wrote:
On Apr 14, 2020, at 1:00 AM, Sean Mullan wrote:
When a SecurityManager is enabled, early code paths that involve
> On Apr 15, 2020, at 11:29 PM, Sean Mullan wrote:
>
> On 4/15/20 3:30 AM, Weijun Wang wrote:
>>> On Apr 14, 2020, at 1:00 AM, Sean Mullan wrote:
>>>
>>> When a SecurityManager is enabled, early code paths that involve
>>> ServiceLoader (SL) can trigger permission checks that cause parsing
Sorry, not yet. Still busy on something else.
I'll look into it today and tomorrow.
Thanks,
Max
> On Apr 16, 2020, at 5:17 AM, Osipov, Michael
> wrote:
>
> Max,
>
> did you get a chance to go through the comments? I'd like to start review 2
> (interaction) somewhere next week, but would
> On Apr 16, 2020, at 5:10 AM, Osipov, Michael
> wrote:
>
> Max,
>
> Am 2020-04-15 um 15:41 schrieb Weijun Wang:
>> I don't know about the history, but it looks like the original author
>> believes that for MS interop a NegTokenTarg should have the same bytes in
>> reponseToken and
Thanks Pavel, I will keep this in mind for future patches.
> On Apr 15, 2020, at 10:22 PM, Pavel Rappo wrote:
>
> Vipin,
>
> After a private exchange with Naoto Sato, who is fluent in that area, I
> decided
> to leave out all the changes to the jdk.internal.icu package from the
> changeset.
Vipin,
After a private exchange with Naoto Sato, who is fluent in that area, I decided
to leave out all the changes to the jdk.internal.icu package from the changeset.
The reason is quite simple. A significant portion of code in jdk.internal.icu
comes from an upstream project, ICU4J. Making
Max,
did you get a chance to go through the comments? I'd like to start
review 2 (interaction) somewhere next week, but would like to sort this
one out first.
Michael
Am 2020-04-02 um 03:47 schrieb Weijun Wang:
I'll read this carefully, thanks a lot for the comments.
--Max
On Apr 2,
Max,
Am 2020-04-15 um 15:41 schrieb Weijun Wang:
I don't know about the history, but it looks like the original author believes
that for MS interop a NegTokenTarg should have the same bytes in reponseToken
and mechListMIC (this is weird of course). It has been working before, maybe
because
On 4/15/2020 12:44 PM, Sean Mullan wrote:
Should the CSR say what the default schemes are if the properties are
not set?
I added the default value sections.
Also, are the schemes case-insensitive?
Standard names are not case-sensitive, per the Standard Algorithm Names
Specification. I added
Should the CSR say what the default schemes are if the properties are
not set? Also, are the schemes case-insensitive? Also, what is the
behavior if there are syntax errors (ex: not using a comma) in the format?
--Sean
On 4/14/20 11:42 PM, Xuelei Fan wrote:
ping ...
On 4/3/2020 4:13 PM,
On 4/14/20 3:27 AM, Weijun Wang wrote:
After some discussion, we decide to keep the classes in JDK 15 but add a
`forRemoval=true` argument. Related jarsigner help screen and warning message
are also updated.
Please review everything updated at:
Release note :
Looks good!
--Jamil
On 4/15/2020 9:41 AM, Xuelei Fan wrote:
All good catches. The webrev was updated accordingly:
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~xuelei/8242145/webrev.00/
Xuelei
On 4/14/2020 10:03 PM, Jamil Nimeh wrote:
Looks pretty good, a couple questions/comments:
*
All good catches. The webrev was updated accordingly:
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~xuelei/8242145/webrev.00/
Xuelei
On 4/14/2020 10:03 PM, Jamil Nimeh wrote:
Looks pretty good, a couple questions/comments:
* SSLConfiguration.java
o Line 471-473: Does the call to
On 4/3/20 4:13 PM, Xuelei Fan wrote:
Hi,
Could I get the following update reviewed?
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~xuelei/8242145/webrev.00/
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8242141
CSR: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8242145
Release-note:
Vipin,
I saw that Max had already reviewed that incremental patch. That's good.
I couldn't resist fixing a couple of typos in the already affected
jdk.internal.icu
(International Components for Unicode) package. Once this has been cleared by
experts in that area, we are good to go.
Here's the
On 4/15/20 3:30 AM, Weijun Wang wrote:
On Apr 14, 2020, at 1:00 AM, Sean Mullan wrote:
When a SecurityManager is enabled, early code paths that involve ServiceLoader
(SL) can trigger permission checks that cause parsing of a custom policy file
to fail due to recursive processing of the
I don't know about the history, but it looks like the original author believes
that for MS interop a NegTokenTarg should have the same bytes in reponseToken
and mechListMIC (this is weird of course). It has been working before, maybe
because the client never looks into the mechListMIC or maybe
Looks good to me.
--Sean
On 4/14/20 6:52 PM, Valerie Peng wrote:
The changes have been integrated. This is a sub-task for the
release-note update.
Could someone help review the release note wording?
It's at https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8241326
Thanks,
Valerie
> On Apr 9, 2020, at 3:46 AM, Sean Mullan wrote:
>
> On 4/6/20 11:11 PM, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> Please review the fix at
>>http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~weijun/8242184/webrev.00/
>> The major change is inside X509CRLImpl.java to allow params setting and
>> reading.
>> I also take this chance
Please take a review at
https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~weijun/8242811/webrev.00/
The AlgorithmId::getDefaultAlgorithmParameterSpec method is used internally to
retrieve a default AlgorithmParameterSpec to initialize a Signature, mainly be
keytool.
The test shows a case where it can be
> On Apr 14, 2020, at 1:00 AM, Sean Mullan wrote:
>
> When a SecurityManager is enabled, early code paths that involve
> ServiceLoader (SL) can trigger permission checks that cause parsing of a
> custom policy file to fail due to recursive processing of the policy file.
>
> I have fixed
22 matches
Mail list logo
