Looks fine to me as well. cheers, dalibor topic
On 3/3/14 1:21 PM, dmeetry degrave wrote: > Hi all, > > I would like to ask someone with a reviewer status in jdk7u project to look > at these changes. > > thanks, > dmeetry > > On 02/27/2014 05:44 PM, Joel Borggren-Franck wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I looked at webrev.1. Looks good. >> >> cheers >> /Joel >> >> On 2014-02-25, dmeetry degrave wrote: >>> Thanks for looking at this, Peter! >>> >>> On 02/24/2014 04:42 PM, Peter Levart wrote: >>>> Hi Dmeetry, >>>> >>>> On 02/22/2014 01:22 PM, dmeetry degrave wrote: >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> I would like to ask for a review of combined back port for >>>>> 7u-dev/7u80. The main goal is to have a fix for 7122142 in jdk7, it >>>>> also integrates the changes from 8005232, 7185456, 8022721 >>>>> >>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-7122142 >>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8005232 >>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-7185456 >>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8022721 >>>>> >>>>> Original jdk8 changes: >>>>> >>>>> 7122142: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/e4ce6502eac0 >>>>> 8005232: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/1109bfff4e92 >>>>> 7185456: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/ae03282ba501 >>>>> 8022721: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/2281a7f79738 >>>>> >>>>> back port: >>>>> >>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dmeetry/7122142.8005232.7185456.8022721/webrev.0/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Patches can't be applied cleanly, hence it was a manual back port, >>>>> though the final result is equivalent to applying the patches in >>>>> chronological order (8005232, 7185456, 7122142, 8022721) and applying >>>>> all the relevant rejected parts >>>> >>>> It's good to see those patches being back-ported to 7u. By browsing the >>>> webrev, I don't see any obvious difference between the original patches >>>> and the backport. >>> >>> there shouldn't be any! >>> >>>> Do you happen to remember in what part of code there >>>> were rejects so that you had to manually apply the changes? >>> >>> there were conflicts due to small difference between 7 and 8 >>> (copyrights, white spaces, @SuppressWarnings, Class<?>,...). >>> >>> I copied all rejected parts and original patches here: >>> >>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dmeetry/7122142.8005232.7185456.8022721/webrev.1/rej/ >>> >>>>> (with one exception, AnnotationTypeRuntimeAssumptionTest.java test was >>>>> not included due to jdk8 API). >>>> >>>> Ah, It's the Class.getDeclaredAnnotation(Class) that's new in JDK8. >>>> Here's the changed test that only uses the JDK7 API so you can include >>>> this test too: >>>> >>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~plevart/jdk7u/7122142/AnnotationTypeRuntimeAssumptionTest.java >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dmeetry/7122142.8005232.7185456.8022721/webrev.1/ >>> >>> (just with the new test added). >>> >>> thanks, >>> dmeetry >>>>> >>>>> All tests in test/java/lang/annotation passed. >>>>> >>>>> thanks, >>>>> dmeetry >>>> >>>> Regards, Peter >>>> -- Oracle <http://www.oracle.com> Dalibor Topic | Principal Product Manager Phone: +494089091214 <tel:+494089091214> | Mobile: +491737185961 <tel:+491737185961> Oracle Java Platform Group ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG | Kühnehöfe 5 | 22761 Hamburg ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG Hauptverwaltung: Riesstr. 25, D-80992 München Registergericht: Amtsgericht München, HRA 95603 Geschäftsführer: Jürgen Kunz Komplementärin: ORACLE Deutschland Verwaltung B.V. Hertogswetering 163/167, 3543 AS Utrecht, Niederlande Handelsregister der Handelskammer Midden-Niederlande, Nr. 30143697 Geschäftsführer: Alexander van der Ven, Astrid Kepper, Val Maher Green Oracle <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment