On 11/20/12 6:20 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 20/11/2012 14:10, Staffan Larsen wrote:
:
The original plan was for the code in this review to go into both 8
and 7u12. Since 7u12 has a tighter deadline, a possible path would be
to include it only in 7u12, but not in 8. For 8 we would then
implement a fully dynamic solution. The only thing needed in 8 from
this review would be the path field added to the stream classes. Does
that sound like a plan?
I think this is a good plan. I suggest bringing it up on jdk7u-dev so
that the jdk7u maintainers can think about the issue (rather that
trying to get approval at the last minute when you are reading to push).
This sounds a good plan to me too. This would take the pressure off
7u12 deadline while a better solution will be implemented for 8.
Mandy
