Hi Roger
> On Dec 20, 2016, at 11:49 PM, Roger Riggs wrote:
>
> Hi Max,
>
> Comments:
>
> - Is there a better term/phrase to use other than "foo"; it does not appear
> elsewhere in the @implNote.
It appears in the spec of this method:
* p's pathname is implied by this object's
* pathn
> On Dec 22, 2016, at 8:12 AM, Xuelei Fan wrote:
>
> I think the note is an example, may not need an additional CCC.
That's always my understanding.
>
> For easier reading, I may use a contrast example. For example, "Note that
> this means "/-" implies "/foo" but not "foo".".
Good advice.
I think the note is an example, may not need an additional CCC.
For easier reading, I may use a contrast example. For example, "Note
that this means "/-" implies "/foo" but not "foo".".
Use the one you like, I'm OK with the either.
Xuelei
On 12/21/2016 3:58 PM, Wang Weijun wrote:
On Dec
> On Dec 22, 2016, at 4:39 AM, Xuelei Fan wrote:
>
> I'm trying to understand this update. Does "/-" imply "/foo"?
Yes.
>
> Does the following spec can be used to explain the new added note?
>
> * if the wildcard flag is "-", the simple pathname's path
> * must be recursivel
Patrick,
How is 'withAutoFlush' expected to behave for subclasses of PrintWriter?
Jason
From: core-libs-dev on behalf of
Patrick Reinhart
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2016 3:08 PM
To: Roger Riggs
Cc: core-libs-dev
Subject: Re: Request for Review and S
Hi Roger,
I tried to put your suggested changes, into the following webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~reinhapa/reviews/8167648/webrev.01
- 375: Can this use the new private constructor that will handle psOut.
>>> Here I can not get hold on the encoding at this point or have I missed
>>
I'm trying to understand this update. Does "/-" imply "/foo"?
Does the following spec can be used to explain the new added note?
* if the wildcard flag is "-", the simple pathname's path
* must be recursively inside the wildcard pathname's path.
Xuelei
On 12/19/2016 11:25 PM
Hi Hamlin,
Looks fine.
Roger
On 12/21/16 3:00 AM, Hamlin Li wrote:
Would you please review the below patch?
bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8073080
webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mli/8073080/webrev.00/
Thank you
-Hamlin
Hi Abhijit,
Looks fine to push with this additional change to make the descriptions
of 'F' match.
Thanks, Roger
On 12/21/16 7:16 AM, Ivan Gerasimov wrote:
Hi Abhijt!
As you're changing the description of 'F' pattern in
DateTimeFormatterBuilder, it makes sense to do the same in
DateTimeFo
Hi Nadeesh,
Looks fine.
It would be more direct to add that "The inherited field
NumberPrinterParser.field is unused."
No need for another review cycle.
Thanks, Roger
On 12/21/16 8:24 AM, nadeesh tv wrote:
Hi Roger & Stephen,
Please see the updated webrev
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ntv
Hello,
I'm looking for reviews of a relatively simple test change:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dfazunen/8171441/webrev.00/
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8171441
The purpose of the change is to improve diagnostic.
Thanks,
Dima
PS: After the fix the failures will be reported a
Updated (13) webrev looks fine (link above is to webrev 12).
Stephen
On 21 December 2016 at 13:24, nadeesh tv wrote:
> Hi Roger & Stephen,
>
> Please see the updated webrev
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ntv/8145633/webrev.13/
>
>
> On 12/21/2016 3:11 AM, Roger Riggs wrote:
>
> Hi Nadeesh,
>
> On
Hi Roger & Stephen,
Please see the updated webrev
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ntv/8145633/webrev.13/
On 12/21/2016 3:11 AM, Roger Riggs wrote:
Hi Nadeesh,
On 12/20/2016 2:34 PM, nadeesh tv wrote:
Hi Roger & Stephen ,
Thanks for the comments.
Please see the updated webrev
http://cr.openj
Hi Abhijt!
As you're changing the description of 'F' pattern in
DateTimeFormatterBuilder, it makes sense to do the same in
DateTimeFormatter.
With kind regards,
Ivan
On 21.12.2016 9:30, Abhijit Roy wrote:
Hi Roger,
I have fixed the same error in DateTimeFormatterBuiler. Please see the
up
Looks good
Stephen
On 21 Dec 2016 6:31 a.m., "Abhijit Roy" wrote:
Hi Roger,
I have fixed the same error in DateTimeFormatterBuiler. Please see the
updated webrev below.
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rpatil/8171348/webrev.01/
Thanks
Abhijit
On 12/16/2016 8:01 PM, Roger Riggs wrote:
Would you please review the below patch?
bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8073080
webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mli/8073080/webrev.00/
Thank you
-Hamlin
16 matches
Mail list logo