On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 19:04, David Holmes wrote:
> Martin Buchholz said the following on 04/16/10 11:38:
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 17:49, David Holmes
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> If this proceeds I think you need to include AtomicReferenceFieldUpdater
>>> in
>>> this as well.
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>> I ma
Martin Buchholz said the following on 04/16/10 16:58:
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 19:04, David Holmes wrote:
Aside: you forgot to call pass().
Not strictly necessary, since the test fails if and only if it throws.
Ok but it looks odd to print "pass 0 fail 0" ;-)
Now, they
could work around th
Changeset: c444651077d2
Author:andrew
Date: 2010-04-16 09:54 +0100
URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/tl/jdk/rev/c444651077d2
6944361: Missing CKR_ values in PKCS11Exception
Summary: Allow native NSS errors to be observed and correctly reported
Reviewed-by: wetmore, valeriep
! sr
On 16 April 2010 00:06, Bradford Wetmore wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> I couldn't tell for sure if this was for OpenJDK 7 or OpenJDK 6. I'm
> assuming the former?
>
You're correct. I should have made it clearer in the initial e-mail,
though I did ask if it was ok to push it to tl which is 7 only. Th
Hi Doug,
approval as I'm not a subscriber.>
Doug Lea said the following on 04/16/10 21:43:
On 04/15/10 18:34, Martin Buchholz wrote:
People are using Atomic field updaters to update fields in classes in
other classloaders.
I think the policy on this awaits interpretation by Jeff
or other
On 04/15/10 18:34, Martin Buchholz wrote:
People are using Atomic field updaters to update fields in classes in other
classloaders.
I think the policy on this awaits interpretation by Jeff
or other members of security team. FWIW, my take is that
if users know that they may cross class loaders
> You're correct. I should have made it clearer in the initial e-mail,
> though I did ask if it was ok to push it to tl which is 7 only. The
> patch does apply to both, so I'll ask Joe Darcy about backporting it
> once it's in 7.
I would imagine it would be no problem at all. I'll be happy to
