Hi Chris,
There is no way to generate a jar without directory entries using the jar
tool; there is no option for that. What do you think is the best way to
handle this ?
I don't want to re-implement the logic for creating a jar using the
JarOutputStream class.
Do you think it is possible to add a
Chris,
I was thinking of something similar. I will create the jars and their
contents using Java code. There is no need of creating real class files,
using a few resource files and some directories will be enough.
Best,
Diego
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 6:46 PM, chris hegarty wrote:
> Diego,
>
> I'
Am 13.06.2012 13:04, schrieb Lance Andersen - Oracle:
Hi Paul,
Thank you for taking the time to review the code.
I made the change you suggested below
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~lancea/7145913/webrev.02
Typos:
912 * Hence we cannot exactly identify why the insertion faile
Diego,
I'm thinking that some of the trivial source files, to compile and built
into the jars, could be simply created and written by the test itself,
rather than checking them all in. If this makes it cleaner. I really
don't like all the file in test/sun/misc/JarIndex/metaInfFilenames, but
a
Hi Chris,
That's right. The only non-cleanup change is the one in the merge.
Regarding the test case, I will re-write them in order to generate the
jars on fly. I'd scanned the jdk/test folder and found a few jars, that's
why I included them. I have seen your test case, I will use it as a sampl
On 06/13/2012 07:01 PM, Lance Andersen - Oracle wrote:
Hi Remi,
Thank you for the suggestion. Over the years, I have gotten different
views on whether to have multiple return points vs just one.
Is there a specific style preference that should be used going
forward? At this time, I would
Hi Remi,
Thank you for the suggestion. Over the years, I have gotten different views on
whether to have multiple return points vs just one.
Is there a specific style preference that should be used going forward? At
this time, I would prefer to not make another change and if the consensus
g
On 06/13/2012 06:18 PM, Joe Wang wrote:
Hi Lance,
The changes look good to me.
Joe
Hi Lance,
just a minor comment, in isPKNameValid, you don't need the boolean
isValid because
you can return true instead of using break and return false at the end.
cheers,
Rémi
On 6/13/2012 4:09 AM, Paul
Hi Lance,
The changes look good to me.
Joe
On 6/13/2012 4:09 AM, Paul Sandoz wrote:
On Jun 13, 2012, at 1:04 PM, Lance Andersen - Oracle wrote:
Hi Paul,
Thank you for taking the time to review the code.
I made the change you suggested below
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~lancea/7145913/webr
Hi Diego,
Thanks for picking up this bug.
I think your changes look fine. Mainly cleanup except for add ->
addExplicit/addMapping in merge, right? BTW the cleanup makes this more
readable.
Unfortunately, the tests you created require checking in a binary jar
file. This is a real no no for t
Changeset: 4435f8b20d08
Author:weijun
Date: 2012-06-13 19:23 +0800
URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/4435f8b20d08
7176574: sun/security/krb5/auto/TcpTimeout.java failed with solaris-i586
Reviewed-by: chegar
! test/sun/security/krb5/auto/TcpTimeout.java
On Jun 13, 2012, at 1:04 PM, Lance Andersen - Oracle wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> Thank you for taking the time to review the code.
>
>
> I made the change you suggested below
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~lancea/7145913/webrev.02
>
> Let me know if you are good with the change and I will get this
Hi Paul,
Thank you for taking the time to review the code.
I made the change you suggested below
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~lancea/7145913/webrev.02
Let me know if you are good with the change and I will get this puppy put back.
Best
Lance
On Jun 13, 2012, at 3:53 AM, Paul Sandoz wrote:
>
Changeset: 9fd127ff51d5
Author:ohair
Date: 2012-06-12 13:54 -0700
URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/9fd127ff51d5
7176138: Fixes for missing close() calls and possible null pointer reference
instead of fatal error
Reviewed-by: dcubed
! src/share/demo/jvmti/hprof/hprof
On Jun 12, 2012, at 11:11 PM, Joe Wang wrote:
> Looks good to me, Lance.
>
+1
Paul.
Hi Lance,
It looks OK to me, however i don't know much about JDBC. Much cleaner than
before.
Very minor point, you can shoot me for being pedantic!: from line 894 you can
do the following since the return value from pstmt.executeUpdate() is never
used:
894try {
895
16 matches
Mail list logo
