Re: Code review request for 6543593 "(reflect) Clarify private final field mutability"

2011-04-04 Thread joe . darcy
On 4/4/2011 3:31 PM, David Holmes wrote: Joe Darcy said the following on 04/04/11 17:46: David Holmes wrote: [snip] ** shouldn't all those @exception tags get converted to @throws? That would certainly be my style recommendation, but I wasn't looking to make that change at the moment.

Please review: 7029048: LD_LIBRARY_PATH launcher changes

2011-04-04 Thread Kumar Srinivasan
Hello core-libs friends, Background: Earlier in the jdk7 development setting of LD_LIBRARY_PATH was purged in the launcher, this is a good thing!, Joe has an excellent blog which explains the rational etc. etc. here: http://blogs.sun.com/darcy/entry/purging_ld_library_path More background: Un

Re: Code review request for 6543593 "(reflect) Clarify private final field mutability"

2011-04-04 Thread David Holmes
Joe Darcy said the following on 04/04/11 17:46: David Holmes wrote: I'm not sure exactly what Bill was complaining about here, His specific issue was addressed by the diff ... In other words, setAccessible(true) can succeed on a java.lang.reflect.Field object but not on a field. Which is

hg: jdk7/tl/langtools: 2 new changesets

2011-04-04 Thread alan . bateman
Changeset: 7916df9c99be Author:alanb Date: 2011-04-04 18:10 +0100 URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/tl/langtools/rev/7916df9c99be 7029979: (fs) Path.toRealPath(boolean) should be toRealPath(LinkOption...) Reviewed-by: mcimadamore, jjg ! src/share/classes/com/sun/tools/javac/nio/

hg: jdk7/tl/jdk: 2 new changesets

2011-04-04 Thread xueming . shen
Changeset: 59f43e232481 Author:sherman Date: 2011-04-04 11:30 -0700 URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/tl/jdk/rev/59f43e232481 6751338: ZIP inflater/deflater performance Summary: To use GetPrimitiveArrayCritical for bye array access Reviewed-by: bristor, alanb ! src/share/classes

hg: jdk7/tl/jdk: 6543593: (reflect) Clarify private final field mutability

2011-04-04 Thread joe . darcy
Changeset: abb29a6bc9f3 Author:darcy Date: 2011-04-04 11:22 -0700 URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/tl/jdk/rev/abb29a6bc9f3 6543593: (reflect) Clarify private final field mutability Reviewed-by: dholmes, alanb, mduigou ! src/share/classes/java/lang/reflect/Constructor.java ! src

Re: Code review request for 6543593 "(reflect) Clarify private final field mutability"

2011-04-04 Thread Alan Bateman
Joe Darcy wrote: How about for the setters * @exception IllegalAccessExceptionif this {@code Field} object * enforces Java language access control and the underlying * field is either inaccessible or final. Updated webrev at http://cr.openjdk.jav

Re: Code review request for 6543593 "(reflect) Clarify private final field mutability"

2011-04-04 Thread Joe Darcy
Mike Duigou wrote: This looks good. Since accessibility is mutable I wonder if the wording should be: * @exception IllegalAccessExceptionif this {@code Field} object is * enforcing Java language access control and the underlying * field is either inacc

Re: Code review request for 6543593 "(reflect) Clarify private final field mutability"

2011-04-04 Thread Mike Duigou
This looks good. Since accessibility is mutable I wonder if the wording should be: >* @exception IllegalAccessExceptionif this {@code Field} object is >* enforcing Java language access control and the underlying >* field is either inaccessible or final.

hg: jdk7/tl/langtools: 7010344: Some of the html files do not have element in right context.

2011-04-04 Thread bhavesh . patel
Changeset: 734144b6b22f Author:bpatel Date: 2011-04-04 10:14 -0700 URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/tl/langtools/rev/734144b6b22f 7010344: Some of the html files do not have element in right context. Reviewed-by: jjg ! src/share/classes/com/sun/tools/doclets/formats/html/Anno

Re: Code review request for 6543593 "(reflect) Clarify private final field mutability"

2011-04-04 Thread Joe Darcy
Alan Bateman wrote: Joe Darcy wrote: Fair enough. How about just for the setter methods + * @exception IllegalAccessExceptionif this {@code Field} object + * enforces Java language access control and the underlying + * field is inaccessible or is f

Re: Code review request for 6543593 "(reflect) Clarify private final field mutability"

2011-04-04 Thread Alan Bateman
Joe Darcy wrote: Fair enough. How about just for the setter methods + * @exception IllegalAccessExceptionif this {@code Field} object + * enforces Java language access control and the underlying + * field is inaccessible or is final. I think a comma

Re: Review Request for 6751338: ZIP inflater/deflater performance

2011-04-04 Thread Alan Bateman
Xueming Shen wrote: Dave, Alan, Here is the final webrev based on Dave's patch and the jdk1.5 code that does not have the change for 6206933. JPRT job result suggests no new testing failure and my "non-scientific" benchmark test (to use GZIPOu/InputStream to compress/ decompress the rt.jar) d

Re: Code review request for 6543593 "(reflect) Clarify private final field mutability"

2011-04-04 Thread Joe Darcy
Hi David. David Holmes wrote: Hi Joe, I'm not sure exactly what Bill was complaining about here, His specific issue was addressed by the diff * If the underlying field is final, the method throws an - * {@code IllegalAccessException} unless - * {@code setAccessible(true)} has suc

Re: Code review request for 6543593 "(reflect) Clarify private final field mutability"

2011-04-04 Thread David Holmes
Hi Joe, I'm not sure exactly what Bill was complaining about here, but using the same phrasing as Method and Constructor is a good thing. However, as the CR pertains in particular to the issue of final fields, I think for the setXXX cases the "@exception** IllegalAccessException" javadoc shoul