Re: Review Request: 8074428, 8074429, 8074430 jdk.pack200, jdk.jartool, jdk.policytool modules

2015-03-05 Thread Alan Bateman
On 05/03/2015 02:55, Wang Weijun wrote: - Move keytool to jdk.security.util, it's now in java.base but keytool is not part of Java SE spec (Of course, if that means keytool will be in JDK instead of JRE please stop. But will there will the name difference anymore? I am thinking of an installer

Re: Review Request: 8074428, 8074429, 8074430 jdk.pack200, jdk.jartool, jdk.policytool modules

2015-03-05 Thread Alan Bateman
On 05/03/2015 01:13, Mandy Chung wrote: : Separate webrevs for each issue: 1. pack200, unpack200 to jdk.pack200 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mchung/jdk9/webrevs/8074428%2b8074429%2b8074430/8074428/webrev.00/ I think this looks okay. In the unshuffle_list (for back/forward porting patches) the

Re: Review Request: 8074428, 8074429, 8074430 jdk.pack200, jdk.jartool, jdk.policytool modules

2015-03-05 Thread Alan Bateman
On 05/03/2015 01:13, Mandy Chung wrote: 3. policytool to jdk.policytool http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mchung/jdk9/webrevs/8074428%2b8074429%2b8074430/8074430/webrev.00/ This part looks good to me. -Alan

Re: RFR: 8058470 [jconsole] VM Summary Tab is blank for JDK9's jconsole.

2015-03-05 Thread Erik Joelsson
Hello, The specification for the properties file format says that a comment is a line that has either a ! or # as the first non whitespace character. Greping around in the source shows we have several instances if comments tarting a few spaces in. I don't think we are using ! for comments any

Re: Review Request: 8074428, 8074429, 8074430 jdk.pack200, jdk.jartool, jdk.policytool modules

2015-03-05 Thread Chris Hegarty
On 5 Mar 2015, at 08:31, Alan Bateman wrote: > On 05/03/2015 01:13, Mandy Chung wrote: >> : >> >> Separate webrevs for each issue: >> 1. pack200, unpack200 to jdk.pack200 >> >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mchung/jdk9/webrevs/8074428%2b8074429%2b8074430/8074428/webrev.00/ >> > I think this loo

Re: make clean-docs

2015-03-05 Thread Erik Joelsson
Yes, it has been noted and I created a bug for it while back. I was missing it myself just yesterday so it should happen anytime now. :) /Erik On 2015-03-05 03:13, Jonathan Gibbons wrote: Build team, Given the versatility of "make clean" and friends, I was surprised that "make clean-docs" di

Re: make clean-docs

2015-03-05 Thread Erik Joelsson
Link to bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8073634 /Erik On 2015-03-05 10:07, Erik Joelsson wrote: Yes, it has been noted and I created a bug for it while back. I was missing it myself just yesterday so it should happen anytime now. :) /Erik On 2015-03-05 03:13, Jonathan Gibbons wr

Re: Review Request: 8074428, 8074429, 8074430 jdk.pack200, jdk.jartool, jdk.policytool modules

2015-03-05 Thread Weijun Wang
There is no problem the new API be in a separate module. It is independent of keytool now. Said that, I've been thinking about rewriting keytool to use this new API. --Max On 3/5/2015 16:23, Alan Bateman wrote: On 05/03/2015 02:55, Wang Weijun wrote: - Move keytool to jdk.security.util, it's

Re: Review Request: 8074428, 8074429, 8074430 jdk.pack200, jdk.jartool, jdk.policytool modules

2015-03-05 Thread Erik Joelsson
Hello Mandy, The build changes look ok to me. /Erik On 2015-03-05 02:13, Mandy Chung wrote: As listed in an open issue in JEP 200: The jdk.dev and jdk.runtime modules contain miscellaneous tools that do not obviously belong to any other module; these modules will eventually be either renamed

Re: RFR: 8058470 [jconsole] VM Summary Tab is blank for JDK9's jconsole.

2015-03-05 Thread Staffan Larsen
Your expression looks good to me (and I verified that it solved the jconsole bug). I will push that. Thanks, /Staffan > On 5 mar 2015, at 10:05, Erik Joelsson wrote: > > Hello, > > The specification for the properties file format says that a comment is a > line that has either a ! or # as th

Re: make clean-docs

2015-03-05 Thread Jonathan Gibbons
Thanks, Erik. -- Jon On 03/05/2015 01:07 AM, Erik Joelsson wrote: Link to bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8073634 /Erik On 2015-03-05 10:07, Erik Joelsson wrote: Yes, it has been noted and I created a bug for it while back. I was missing it myself just yesterday so it should hap

Re: Review Request: 8074428, 8074429, 8074430 jdk.pack200, jdk.jartool, jdk.policytool modules

2015-03-05 Thread Alan Bateman
On 05/03/2015 01:13, Mandy Chung wrote: : 2. jar, jarsigner to jdk.jartool http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mchung/jdk9/webrevs/8074428%2b8074429%2b8074430/8074429/webrev.00/ It seems reasonable to have both jar and jarsigner in the same module so I think this is good. This will also work if Ma

Re: Review Request: 8074428, 8074429, 8074430 jdk.pack200, jdk.jartool, jdk.policytool modules

2015-03-05 Thread Mandy Chung
On 3/5/2015 12:31 AM, Alan Bateman wrote: On 05/03/2015 01:13, Mandy Chung wrote: : Separate webrevs for each issue: 1. pack200, unpack200 to jdk.pack200 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mchung/jdk9/webrevs/8074428%2b8074429%2b8074430/8074428/webrev.00/ I think this looks okay. In the unshuffle_

Re: Review Request: 8074428, 8074429, 8074430 jdk.pack200, jdk.jartool, jdk.policytool modules

2015-03-05 Thread Mandy Chung
Max, Since the new APIs you're working on are still in design phase, I think it's a bit early to discuss where these new APIs should be in. Just one thing to say about the new JarSigner API from your webrev. com.sun.jarsigner is an existing exported package that you should consider whether

Re: Review Request: 8074428, 8074429, 8074430 jdk.pack200, jdk.jartool, jdk.policytool modules

2015-03-05 Thread Wang Weijun
> On Mar 6, 2015, at 01:55, Mandy Chung wrote: > > For this review request, are you okay with this patch moving policytool and > jarsigner tools to the new home? Yes. --Max