Yasumasa,
I'll sponsor the push.
-Dmitry
On 2016-08-09 04:01, David Holmes wrote:
> On 8/08/2016 11:17 PM, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
>> Hi David,
>>
>>> It is a better fix in my opinion but still changes the behaviour of
>>> jhsdb - or is that not an issue? Is jhsdb new with 9?
>>
>> Can I list yo
On 8/08/2016 11:17 PM, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
Hi David,
It is a better fix in my opinion but still changes the behaviour of
jhsdb - or is that not an issue? Is jhsdb new with 9?
Can I list you as a reviewer?
This change is agreed by Dmitry. So I think we can move forward it.
Yes to both. :
Hi David,
It is a better fix in my opinion but still changes the behaviour of jhsdb - or
is that not an issue? Is jhsdb new with 9?
Can I list you as a reviewer?
This change is agreed by Dmitry. So I think we can move forward it.
Thanks,
Yasumasa
On 2016/08/05 20:38, David Holmes wrote:
David,
> jhsdb - or is that not an issue? Is jhsdb new with 9?
jhsdb is new for jdk9 and we can lift it's behavior as necessary.
Personally, I'm for adding --no-mixed and leave default to mixed (making
--mixed NOP), because mixed is the most common usecase.
But I'm OK with a simple fix that res
It is a better fix in my opinion but still changes the behaviour of jhsdb - or
is that not an issue? Is jhsdb new with 9?
At least, until April 2016, "jhsdb jstack" worked as normal mode (and not
concurrent lock) mode by default.
jhsdb jstack --help shows as below:
-
--locks
On 5/08/2016 8:55 PM, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
Hi David,
Thank you for your comment.
For not to break current behavior, I think we should not change c'tor of
JStack.
I uploaded new webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ysuenaga/JDK-8163185/webrev.01/
David, is it okay?
It is a better fix in
Yasumasa,
I'm OK with this fix.
-Dmitry
On 2016-08-05 13:55, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> Thank you for your comment.
>
> For not to break current behavior, I think we should not change c'tor of
> JStack.
> I uploaded new webrev:
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ysuenaga/JDK-8163
Hi David,
Thank you for your comment.
For not to break current behavior, I think we should not change c'tor of JStack.
I uploaded new webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ysuenaga/JDK-8163185/webrev.01/
David, is it okay?
Dmitry, could you review again?
Thanks,
Yasumasa
On 2016/08/05 14:
On 5/08/2016 12:24 AM, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
Hi all,
This review request is related to [1].
"jhsdb jstack" should work as normal mode without being added --mixed
option.
However, this command always works as mixed mode.
So it seems to me the JStack class has a very poorly designed API and
Thanks Dmitry,
2016/08/04 23:44 "Dmitry Samersoff" :
>
> Yasumasa,
>
> Looks good for me.
>
> Comment is a bit misleading, so it might be better to remove it (no need
> to re-review).
Okay, I will remove it.
Yasumasa
> -Dmitry
>
>
> On 2016-08-04 17:24, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
>
Yasumasa,
Looks good for me.
Comment is a bit misleading, so it might be better to remove it (no need
to re-review).
-Dmitry
On 2016-08-04 17:24, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This review request is related to [1].
>
> "jhsdb jstack" should work as normal mode without being added --m
Hi all,
This review request is related to [1].
"jhsdb jstack" should work as normal mode without being added --mixed option.
However, this command always works as mixed mode.
So I uploaded webrev for this issue. Could you review it?
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ysuenaga/JDK-8163185/webrev.00/
12 matches
Mail list logo
