On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 12:37:23 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
>> Can I please get a review of this doc-only change which updates the javadoc
>> of several classes in `java.util.jar` and `java.util.zip` to specify their
>> behaviour when `null` arguments are passed to the constructor or methods of
>>
On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 10:05:52 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
> Can I please get a review of this doc-only change which updates the javadoc
> of several classes in `java.util.jar` and `java.util.zip` to specify their
> behaviour when `null` arguments are passed to the constructor or methods of
> those
On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 19:06:21 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
> Security changes look fine. Although I don't know how to remove those
> annotations later. A lot of compatibility impact.
In case you didn't see it, the warning message are listed in an attachment on
On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 23:36:41 GMT, Joe Darcy wrote:
> After the "this-escape" lint warning was added to javac (JDK-8015831), the
> base module was not updated to be able to compile with this warning enabled.
> This PR makes the necessary changes to allow the base module to build with
> the
On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 19:28:11 GMT, Joe Darcy wrote:
>> After the "this-escape" lint warning was added to javac (JDK-8015831), the
>> base module was not updated to be able to compile with this warning enabled.
>> This PR makes the necessary changes to allow the base module to build with
>> the
> After the "this-escape" lint warning was added to javac (JDK-8015831), the
> base module was not updated to be able to compile with this warning enabled.
> This PR makes the necessary changes to allow the base module to build with
> the warning enabled.
Joe Darcy has updated the pull request
> After the "this-escape" lint warning was added to javac (JDK-8015831), the
> base module was not updated to be able to compile with this warning enabled.
> This PR makes the necessary changes to allow the base module to build with
> the warning enabled.
Joe Darcy has updated the pull request
On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 23:36:41 GMT, Joe Darcy wrote:
> After the "this-escape" lint warning was added to javac (JDK-8015831), the
> base module was not updated to be able to compile with this warning enabled.
> This PR makes the necessary changes to allow the base module to build with
> the
On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 09:49:10 GMT, Oli Gillespie wrote:
>> A typical call to `new SecureRandom()` is slowed down by looking for a
>> constructor in NativePRNG which takes
>> `java.security.SecureRandomParameters`. NativePRNG does not have such a
>> constructor, so the search fails
>>
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 11:57:04 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
> This is a follow-up on
> [JDK-8324053](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8324053). I have run the
> bin/blessed-modifier-order.sh on the entire code base, and manually checked
> the result. I have reverted all but these trivial
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 11:57:04 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
> This is a follow-up on
> [JDK-8324053](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8324053). I have run the
> bin/blessed-modifier-order.sh on the entire code base, and manually checked
> the result. I have reverted all but these trivial
On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 14:19:03 GMT, Sean Coffey wrote:
>> During the time of server certificate validation, users have the flexibility
>> to use a custom X509 Key Manager implementation by extending
>> "X509ExtendedKeyManager.".
>> In such cases, printing the class name in X509Authentication.java
On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 14:19:27 GMT, Sean Coffey wrote:
>> During the time of server certificate validation, users have the flexibility
>> to use a custom X509 Key Manager implementation by extending
>> "X509ExtendedKeyManager.".
>> In such cases, printing the class name in X509Authentication.java
On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 06:36:10 GMT, Prajwal Kumaraswamy
wrote:
> During the time of server certificate validation, users have the flexibility
> to use a custom X509 Key Manager implementation by extending
> "X509ExtendedKeyManager.".
> In such cases, printing the class name in
On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 12:37:23 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
>> Can I please get a review of this doc-only change which updates the javadoc
>> of several classes in `java.util.jar` and `java.util.zip` to specify their
>> behaviour when `null` arguments are passed to the constructor or methods of
>>
On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 12:37:23 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
>> Can I please get a review of this doc-only change which updates the javadoc
>> of several classes in `java.util.jar` and `java.util.zip` to specify their
>> behaviour when `null` arguments are passed to the constructor or methods of
>>
On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 11:31:05 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> Given that subclasses could set these fields lazily (however remote the case
>> might be), do you think we should then not specify the
>> `NullPointerException` for the read methods on these 2 classes. In which
>> case I can exclude
> Can I please get a review of this doc-only change which updates the javadoc
> of several classes in `java.util.jar` and `java.util.zip` to specify their
> behaviour when `null` arguments are passed to the constructor or methods of
> those classes?
>
> For these updated classes, I have
On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 11:14:06 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
>>> These 2 classes, the `CheckedInputStream` and the `CheckedOutputStream` are
>>> slightly different from the rest of the classes in this changeset. This
>>> javadoc here is for the constructor of the `CheckedInputStream`. The
>>>
On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 10:47:31 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> These 2 classes, the `CheckedInputStream` and the `CheckedOutputStream` are
>> slightly different from the rest of the classes in this changeset. This
>> javadoc here is for the constructor of the `CheckedInputStream`. The
>>
On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 10:13:00 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
> These 2 classes, the `CheckedInputStream` and the `CheckedOutputStream` are
> slightly different from the rest of the classes in this changeset. This
> javadoc here is for the constructor of the `CheckedInputStream`. The
> implementation
On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 09:44:25 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> Jaikiran Pai has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> make usage consistent with other similar usages in the file
>
>
On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 09:41:40 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> Jaikiran Pai has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> make usage consistent with other similar usages in the file
>
>
> Can I please get a review of this doc-only change which updates the javadoc
> of several classes in `java.util.jar` and `java.util.zip` to specify their
> behaviour when `null` arguments are passed to the constructor or methods of
> those classes?
>
> For these updated classes, I have
On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 18:46:30 GMT, Valerie Peng wrote:
>> Oli Gillespie has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Update copyright year
>
> src/java.base/unix/classes/sun/security/provider/NativePRNG.java line 207:
>
>> 205: //
> A typical call to `new SecureRandom()` is slowed down by looking for a
> constructor in NativePRNG which takes `java.security.SecureRandomParameters`.
> NativePRNG does not have such a constructor, so the search fails
>
On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 01:52:06 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
>> Can I please get a review of this doc-only change which updates the javadoc
>> of several classes in `java.util.jar` and `java.util.zip` to specify their
>> behaviour when `null` arguments are passed to the constructor or methods of
>>
27 matches
Mail list logo
