Re: RFR: 8253497: Core Libs Terminology Refresh [v2]

2020-12-15 Thread Stuart Marks
On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 09:17:03 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: >> Your call, I'm not a native English speaker :-) It felt to me it's >> 'restrictive' than 'restrictively', an adj placed after the noun, e.g. a >> restrictive allow-list. > > It's an adverb, since it's the act of 'defining' that is

Re: RFR: 8253497: Core Libs Terminology Refresh [v2]

2020-12-15 Thread Brent Christian
On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 22:02:00 GMT, Lance Andersen wrote: >> test/jdk/java/lang/ClassLoader/Assert.java line 65: >> >>> 63: >>> 64: int switchSource = 0; >>> 65: if (args.length == 0) { // This is the coordinator version >> >> Perhaps s/coordinator/controller/? > > Let's change

Re: RFR: 8253497: Core Libs Terminology Refresh [v2]

2020-12-15 Thread Lance Andersen
On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 21:57:17 GMT, Brian Burkhalter wrote: >> Brent Christian has updated the pull request incrementally with one >> additional commit since the last revision: >> >> updates, per code review > > test/jdk/java/lang/ClassLoader/Assert.java line 65: > >> 63: >> 64: int

Re: RFR: 8253497: Core Libs Terminology Refresh [v2]

2020-12-15 Thread Brian Burkhalter
On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 01:46:08 GMT, Brent Christian wrote: >> This is part of an effort in the JDK to replace archaic/non-inclusive words >> with more neutral terms (see JDK-8253315 for details). >> >> Here are the changes covering core libraries code and tests. Terms were >> changed as

Re: RFR: 8253497: Core Libs Terminology Refresh [v2]

2020-12-15 Thread Brent Christian
On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 07:32:12 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote: >> Brent Christian has updated the pull request incrementally with one >> additional commit since the last revision: >> >> updates, per code review > > test/jdk/java/nio/channels/SocketChannel/CloseRegisteredChannel.java line 45: > >>

Re: RFR: 8253497: Core Libs Terminology Refresh [v2]

2020-12-15 Thread Magnus Ihse Bursie
On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 01:41:07 GMT, Joe Wang wrote: >> I agree that there is room for improvement here. How about: >> "...an allow-list too restrictively, or a reject-list too broadly, may..." >> ? > > Your call, I'm not a native English speaker :-) It felt to me it's > 'restrictive' than

Re: RFR: 8253497: Core Libs Terminology Refresh [v2]

2020-12-14 Thread Alan Bateman
On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 01:46:08 GMT, Brent Christian wrote: >> This is part of an effort in the JDK to replace archaic/non-inclusive words >> with more neutral terms (see JDK-8253315 for details). >> >> Here are the changes covering core libraries code and tests. Terms were >> changed as

Re: RFR: 8253497: Core Libs Terminology Refresh [v2]

2020-12-14 Thread Joe Wang
On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 01:36:27 GMT, Brent Christian wrote: >> src/java.management.rmi/share/classes/javax/management/remote/rmi/RMIConnectorServer.java >> line 152: >> >>> 150: * >>> 151: * Care must be taken when defining such a filter, as defining >>> 152: * an accept-list too

Re: RFR: 8253497: Core Libs Terminology Refresh [v2]

2020-12-14 Thread Brent Christian
> This is part of an effort in the JDK to replace archaic/non-inclusive words > with more neutral terms (see JDK-8253315 for details). > > Here are the changes covering core libraries code and tests. Terms were > changed as follows: > 1. grandfathered -> legacy > 2. blacklist -> filter or