Hi Patrick, Thank you very much for the offer to hold my patch for me!
Is it common practice to send patches to others using PGP? Kind regards, Jonathan On 12 September 2016 at 21:08, Patrick Reinhart <patr...@reini.net> wrote: > Hi Jonathan, > > As just also wanted to help some more clean-up in the JDKs final phase, I > could offer you to hold that patch. Just send it to me and I will prepare > the webrev for you…. > > -Patrick > > > > Am 12.09.2016 um 20:36 schrieb Jonathan Bluett-Duncan < > jbluettdun...@gmail.com>: > > > > Hi David, > > > > Thanks for letting me know about the attachment stripping behaviour, and > > reminding me about the current state of the JDK 9 release schedule. > > > > Stuart, would you be happy to host my patch on cr.openjdk.java.net? If > not, > > do you know who else might be happy to host it for me? Or alternatively, > > would you prefer I wait until development of Java 9 Updates and/or Java > 10 > > starts? > > > > Kind regards, > > Jonathan > > > > On 12 September 2016 at 01:50, David Holmes <david.hol...@oracle.com> > wrote: > > > >> Hi Jonathon, > >> > >> Attachments get stripped from most of the mailing lists so you will need > >> to find someone to host these for you on cr.openjdk.java.net. > >> > >> That aside you may be hard pressed to find anyone who can look at this > >> future work now, given where things are with the JDK 9 release schedule. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> David > >> > >> > >> On 11/09/2016 9:42 AM, Jonathan Bluett-Duncan wrote: > >> > >>> Hi all, > >>> > >>> Would you kindly review this patch to replace existing uses of > >>> Collections.unmodifiable*(*Arrays.asList(*)) and plain > Arrays.asList(*) > >>> with (List|Set|Map).of(*). You may find the patch files in the > >>> attachments. > >>> > >>> My rationale for replacing uses of Collections.unmodifiable*... with > >>> (List|Set|Map).of is to make use of the memory savings allowed by the > >>> newer > >>> APIs. > >>> > >>> The general rationale for replacing the Arrays.asList calls I've > touched > >>> is > >>> to again make use of memory savings, but this may be naive or misguided > >>> reasoning on my part, as Arrays.asList may or may not be more > >>> memory-efficient than List.of. However, where I've replaced > Arrays.asList > >>> for List.of in FileTreeIterator, my reasoning for doing so instead was > to > >>> help prevent TOCTOU attacks, but again this may be misguided on my > part. > >>> > >>> It doesn't seem practical to me to include new unit tests, as these are > >>> mainly performance improvements, but if it's believed that new unit > tests > >>> are needed, then I'd be happy to go back and try to include some. > >>> > >>> Kind regards, > >>> Jonathan > >>> > >>> > >
