hg: jdk8/tl/jaxws: 2 new changesets

Changeset: 3eb7f11cb4e0 Author:katleman Date: 2012-11-15 15:39 -0800 URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jaxws/rev/3eb7f11cb4e0 Added tag jdk8-b65 for changeset fbe54291c9d3 ! .hgtags Changeset: eb06aa51dfc2 Author:katleman Date: 2012-11-29 11:30 -0800 URL: http

hg: jdk8/tl/hotspot: 25 new changesets

Changeset: 4e3e685dbc9d Author:katleman Date: 2012-11-15 15:39 -0800 URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/hotspot/rev/4e3e685dbc9d Added tag jdk8-b65 for changeset 0f7290a03b24 ! .hgtags Changeset: 3be318ecfae5 Author:amurillo Date: 2012-11-09 08:36 -0800 URL: ht

hg: jdk8/tl/jdk: 18 new changesets

Changeset: c87df8b1f55e Author:katleman Date: 2012-11-15 15:40 -0800 URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/c87df8b1f55e Added tag jdk8-b65 for changeset 130d3a54d28b ! .hgtags Changeset: 03d22c98b30a Author:ceisserer Date: 2012-11-13 16:12 -0800 URL: http:

hg: jdk8/tl/langtools: 6 new changesets

Changeset: b5d326a809a1 Author:katleman Date: 2012-11-15 15:40 -0800 URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/langtools/rev/b5d326a809a1 Added tag jdk8-b65 for changeset 5f2faba89cac ! .hgtags Changeset: 09ba1bfab344 Author:lana Date: 2012-11-20 11:50 -0800 URL: http

hg: jdk8/tl/corba: 2 new changesets

Changeset: 65771ad1ca55 Author:katleman Date: 2012-11-15 15:38 -0800 URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/corba/rev/65771ad1ca55 Added tag jdk8-b65 for changeset 5132f7900a8f ! .hgtags Changeset: 394515ad2a55 Author:katleman Date: 2012-11-29 11:29 -0800 URL: http

hg: jdk8/tl: 14 new changesets

Changeset: 0e1b5886b06c Author:katleman Date: 2012-11-15 15:38 -0800 URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/rev/0e1b5886b06c Added tag jdk8-b65 for changeset b772de306dc2 ! .hgtags Changeset: a2df4ee40ecb Author:tbell Date: 2012-11-14 10:05 -0800 URL: http://hg.ope

hg: jdk8/tl/jaxp: 2 new changesets

Changeset: e6af1ad464e3 Author:katleman Date: 2012-11-15 15:39 -0800 URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jaxp/rev/e6af1ad464e3 Added tag jdk8-b65 for changeset 5cf3c69a93d6 ! .hgtags Changeset: 83df3493ca3c Author:katleman Date: 2012-11-29 11:30 -0800 URL: http:

RFR: 8003596 CheckLockLocationTest-Windows-fix

Please review http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jgish/Bug8003596-CheckLockLocationTest-Windows-fix/ Summary: fixes test when running on Windows so that test that requires setWritable is not run, because Windows does

Re: Review/comment needed for the new public java.util.Base64 class

Ulf, The base64 implementation is in TL right now. It does address some of the issue you suggested in this email. And I remember I did try use "byte[]" alphabets, which I don't recall bring us any benefit, but I'm not sure in which setup. The latest is at http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sherman/800

Re: Request for Review : CR#8004015 : Add interface extends and defaults for basic functional interfaces

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 6:50 PM, David Holmes wrote: > Mike, > > On 28/11/2012 3:32 AM, Mike Duigou wrote: > > On Nov 27 2012, at 03:56 , Stephen Colebourne wrote: > > > >> On 27 November 2012 02:12, Mike Duigou wrote: > >>> In the original patch which added the basic lambda functional > interfac

RFR- 7200297 jdwp and hprof code do not handle multiple sun.boot.library.path elements correctly

This bug was reviewed by serviceability and hotspot-runtime-dev lists since it dealt with jvmti agent code. Comments welcome. The intent is to push into tl/jdk tree and then eventually back into jdk7u-dev hopefully. Webrev here: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bpittore/7200297/webrev.04/ And pre

hg: jdk8/tl/jdk: 7198904: (alt-rt) TreeMap.clone is broken

Changeset: f389bf27fc4f Author:dbuck Date: 2012-11-20 21:35 -0800 URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/f389bf27fc4f 7198904: (alt-rt) TreeMap.clone is broken Summary: Test case for cr7198904. Issue only found in OracleJDK, but test case is valid for OpenJDK as well Revie

Re: Request for Review (#4) : CR#8001634 : Initial set of lambda functional interfaces

Couple of quick comments: 1. I think the naming is inconsistent between class and method, e.g. IntFunction has an applyAsInt method. Why not either IntFunction and intApply or FunctionAsInt and applyAsInt? 2. It would be good to have a description of the stream library, perhaps an expanded for

Re: Request for Review : CR#8004015 : Add interface extends and defaults for basic functional interfaces

What is the benefit of throwing an IllegalStateException in a default method over not providing any default method so that the compiler and runtime make sure concrete subtypes provide an implementation? On Nov 30, 2012 9:54 AM, "Lance Andersen - Oracle" < lance.ander...@oracle.com> wrote: > > On N

Re: Review/comment needed for the new public java.util.Base64 class

Hi Sherman, is this ssue still open ? -Ulf Am 03.11.2012 21:33, schrieb Ulf Zibis: Am 30.10.2012 23:40, schrieb Xueming Shen: I'm "confused" about the order of xxcode() and Xxcoder. In other places e.g. charsets, we have de... before en..., which is also true alphabetical should not be an

Request for review for [JBS] (JDK-8004212) java.util.Base64 methods decodeArray and decodeBuffer should return the number of bytes written

Alan, It appears the return value is not correct in decode(Bytebuffer...) case if the buffer is overflow. Here is the webrev for that. http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sherman/8004212/webrev/ Thanks, -Sherman

hg: jdk8/tl/jdk: 7197662: (prefs) java/util/prefs/AddNodeChangeListener.java fails by timeout or by "couldn't get file lock"

Changeset: 43d2e02c4098 Author:khazra Date: 2012-11-30 12:00 -0800 URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/43d2e02c4098 7197662: (prefs) java/util/prefs/AddNodeChangeListener.java fails by timeout or by "couldn't get file lock" Summary: Set -Djava.util.prefs.userRoot to cur

Re: Request for review (XXS): JDK-8004066: TEST_BUG: test/java/lang/Math/DivModTests.java assumes ArithmeticException message

The open bug URL is: http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=8004066 Sorry for the noise. - Kris On 12/01/2012 02:56 AM, Krystal Mo wrote: Forgot to mention: the two runs of the test in the last mail were examples of test failures before the fix. They would run fine after the fix.

Re: Review Request: 8004201: add reducers to primitive type wrappers

Yup, exactly. I specifically called out the int version as the one to at least change over to Math since I know that's intrinsified. Thanks Kris Sent from my phone On Nov 30, 2012 2:19 PM, "Krystal Mo" wrote: > Hi Vitaly, > > Right now HotSpot only declares and implements the (int,int)->int ve

Re: Review Request: 8004201: add reducers to primitive type wrappers

Hi Vitaly, Right now HotSpot only declares and implements the (int,int)->int version of Math.min/max as intrinsics. Nevertheless, it wouldn't hurt to use the Math methods, in hope that they'll get more love in the future :-) - Kris On 12/01/2012 02:59 AM, Vitaly Davidovich wrote: Hi Akhil,

Re: Request for review (XXS): JDK-8004066: TEST_BUG: test/java/lang/Math/DivModTests.java assumes ArithmeticException message

On Nov 30, 2012, at 10:48 AM, Krystal Mo wrote: > Hi all, > > Could I get a couple of review for this small change, please? > And could someone from the JDK side sponsor this change? > > Bug: https://jbs.oracle.com/bugs/browse/JDK-8004066 > Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kmo/8004066/webre

Re: Review Request: 8004201: add reducers to primitive type wrappers

Hi Akhil, At least for Integer.min/max you may want to use Math.min/max - these are jit intrinsics. I'd probably use the Math methods for all matching types (int, long, float, double) to cover the bases. Thanks Sent from my phone On Nov 30, 2012 1:45 PM, "Akhil Arora" wrote: > Hi > > Requesti

Re: Request for review (XXS): JDK-8004066: TEST_BUG: test/java/lang/Math/DivModTests.java assumes ArithmeticException message

Forgot to mention: the two runs of the test in the last mail were examples of test failures before the fix. They would run fine after the fix. - Kris On 12/01/2012 02:48 AM, Krystal Mo wrote: Hi all, Could I get a couple of review for this small change, please? And could someone from the JDK

Re: bottleneck by java.lang.Class.getAnnotations() - rebased patch

On 30/11/2012 18:36, Peter Levart wrote: : So, what do you think? What kind of tests should I prepare in addidion to those 3 so that the patch might get a consideration? I think this is good work and thanks for re-basing your patch. I know David plans to do a detail review. I think it will req

Request for review (XXS): JDK-8004066: TEST_BUG: test/java/lang/Math/DivModTests.java assumes ArithmeticException message

Hi all, Could I get a couple of review for this small change, please? And could someone from the JDK side sponsor this change? Bug: https://jbs.oracle.com/bugs/browse/JDK-8004066 Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kmo/8004066/webrev.00/ The DivModTest introduced in JDK-6282196 [1] checks the c

Review Request: 8004201: add reducers to primitive type wrappers

Hi Requesting review for some basic functionality related to lambdas - Add min, max, sum methods to the primitive wrapper classes - Byte, Short, Integer, Long, Float, Double and Character so as to be able to use them as reducers in lambda expressions. Add and, or, xor methods to Boolean. ht

Re: bottleneck by java.lang.Class.getAnnotations() - rebased patch

Hi Alan, David, Alexander and others, I noticed the push of Joe Darcy's code for repeating annotations which makes my proposed patch not entirely compatible with new code. So I rebased the patch to current code in jdk8/tl/jdk repository. I had to revert my last improvement (the replacement of

hg: jdk8/tl/jdk: 8004110: Remove debug code form sun/reflect/annotation/AnnotationSupport.java

Changeset: e7edb0da9c6a Author:jfranck Date: 2012-11-30 09:47 +0100 URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/e7edb0da9c6a 8004110: Remove debug code form sun/reflect/annotation/AnnotationSupport.java Reviewed-by: jjg, darcy ! src/share/classes/sun/reflect/annotation/Annotati

hg: jdk8/tl/jdk: 7165762: (aio) Default thread pool should be configured so that threads terminated after a timeout period

Changeset: c370048be8fc Author:alanb Date: 2012-11-30 16:29 + URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/c370048be8fc 7165762: (aio) Default thread pool should be configured so that threads terminated after a timeout period Reviewed-by: chegar ! src/share/classes/sun/nio/

Re: RFR- 7200297 jdwp and hprof code do not handle multiple sun.boot.library.path elements correctly

Ok, Thanks. David Holmes asked that I send to this alias and he would re-review then push it for me. bill | On 11/30/2012 10:37 AM, Alan Bateman wrote: | On 30/11/2012 15:16, BILL PITTORE wrote: This bug was reviewed by serviceability and hotspot-runtime-dev lists since it dealt with jvmti

Re: RFR- 7200297 jdwp and hprof code do not handle multiple sun.boot.library.path elements correctly

On 30/11/2012 15:16, BILL PITTORE wrote: This bug was reviewed by serviceability and hotspot-runtime-dev lists since it dealt with jvmti agent code. Comments welcome. The intent is to push into tl/jdk tree and then eventually back into jdk7u-dev hopefully. Webrev here: http://cr.openjdk.java

hg: jdk8/tl/langtools: 4 new changesets

Changeset: 4f9853659bf1 Author:mcimadamore Date: 2012-11-30 15:14 + URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/langtools/rev/4f9853659bf1 8004105: Expression statement lambdas should be void-compatible Summary: Fix lambda compatibility rules as per latest EDR Reviewed-by: jjg ! sr

RFR- 7200297 jdwp and hprof code do not handle multiple sun.boot.library.path elements correctly

This bug was reviewed by serviceability and hotspot-runtime-dev lists since it dealt with jvmti agent code. Comments welcome. The intent is to push into tl/jdk tree and then eventually back into jdk7u-dev hopefully. Webrev here: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bpittore/7200297/webrev.04/ And pre

Re: Request for Review : CR#8004015 : Add interface extends and defaults for basic functional interfaces

The problem for an API such as JDBC is that the implementation is going to be specific to the driver and backend so providing a default implementation just won't work. This allows existing drivers to compile as they finish their implementation and complete their migration to the new version of

Re: Request for Review : CR#8004015 : Add interface extends and defaults for basic functional interfaces

On Nov 30, 2012, at 7:56 AM, Remi Forax wrote: > On 11/30/2012 01:50 PM, Lance Andersen - Oracle wrote: >> On Nov 30, 2012, at 4:58 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote: >> >>> >>> On 30/11/2012 02:03, David Holmes wrote: On 30/11/2012 12:44 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote: > On 11/29/2012 05:50 AM, David

Re: Request for Review : CR#8004015 : Add interface extends and defaults for basic functional interfaces

On 11/30/2012 01:50 PM, Lance Andersen - Oracle wrote: On Nov 30, 2012, at 4:58 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote: On 30/11/2012 02:03, David Holmes wrote: On 30/11/2012 12:44 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote: On 11/29/2012 05:50 AM, David Holmes wrote: ... I don't agree that we need to describe what the def

Re: Request for Review : CR#8004015 : Add interface extends and defaults for basic functional interfaces

On Nov 30, 2012, at 4:58 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote: > > > On 30/11/2012 02:03, David Holmes wrote: >> On 30/11/2012 12:44 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote: >>> On 11/29/2012 05:50 AM, David Holmes wrote: ... I don't agree that we need to describe what the default implementation does,

Re: JDBC bug: Incorrect number of conflicts is reported by CachedRowSetWriter.writeData

Hi Frank, Thank you for the email. No we do not want tests that require database access in jtreg. What I was trying to say, albeit not probably as clear as it could have been is that it would be helpful to provide a complete example and to use Java DB as the database if it is a generic data a

Re: Code Review Request: 7197662: (prefs) java/util/prefs/AddNodeChangeListener.java fails by timeout or by "couldn't get file lock"

On 30/11/2012 02:04, Kurchi Hazra wrote: Apologies for the extreme delay. I added the bug id, and checked that setting the userRoot=. will result in the JTwork/scratch directory being used to store the preferences. I think we had concluded that othervm is the correct choice for running a test w

Re: Code Review Request: 7197662: (prefs) java/util/prefs/AddNodeChangeListener.java fails by timeout or by "couldn't get file lock"

I'm fine with this change Kurchi. -Chris. On 30/11/2012 02:04, Kurchi Hazra wrote: Apologies for the extreme delay. I added the bug id, and checked that setting the userRoot=. will result in the JTwork/scratch directory being used to store the preferences. I think we had concluded that othervm

hg: jdk8/tl/jdk: 8003949: LogManager, downgrade normative reference to ${java.home}/lib/logging.properties

Changeset: 72d3d07b625d Author:alanb Date: 2012-11-30 11:18 + URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/72d3d07b625d 8003949: LogManager, downgrade normative reference to ${java.home}/lib/logging.properties Reviewed-by: psandoz, mchung ! src/share/classes/java/util/loggi

Re: Request for Review : CR#8004015 : Add interface extends and defaults for basic functional interfaces

On 30/11/2012 7:58 PM, Chris Hegarty wrote: On 30/11/2012 02:03, David Holmes wrote: On 30/11/2012 12:44 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote: On 11/29/2012 05:50 AM, David Holmes wrote: ... I don't agree that we need to describe what the default implementation does, for two reasons: 1. Normal methods do

Re: Request for Review : CR#8004015 : Add interface extends and defaults for basic functional interfaces

On 30/11/2012 02:03, David Holmes wrote: On 30/11/2012 12:44 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote: On 11/29/2012 05:50 AM, David Holmes wrote: ... I don't agree that we need to describe what the default implementation does, for two reasons: 1. Normal methods don't usually specify how they are implemente

Re: 7099119: Remove unused dlinfo local variable in launcher code

On 11/30/2012 5:27 PM, Jonathan Lu wrote: On 11/30/2012 04:58 PM, Alan Bateman wrote: On 30/11/2012 08:49, Jonathan Lu wrote: Hi Chance, I'm getting an error of, "remote: Bugid 7099119 already used in this repository, in revision 4607" Could you please create another sun bug for this issue

Re: 7099119: Remove unused dlinfo local variable in launcher code

On 11/30/2012 04:58 PM, Alan Bateman wrote: On 30/11/2012 08:49, Jonathan Lu wrote: Hi Chance, I'm getting an error of, "remote: Bugid 7099119 already used in this repository, in revision 4607" Could you please create another sun bug for this issue? Right, you can't use a bug/issue number i

hg: jdk8/tl/jdk: 8004211: Remove unused dlinfo local variable in launcher code

Changeset: e988de7465d4 Author:zhangshj Date: 2012-11-30 17:24 +0800 URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/e988de7465d4 8004211: Remove unused dlinfo local variable in launcher code Reviewed-by: alanb ! src/solaris/bin/java_md_solinux.c

Re: 7099119: Remove unused dlinfo local variable in launcher code

On 30/11/2012 08:49, Jonathan Lu wrote: Hi Chance, I'm getting an error of, "remote: Bugid 7099119 already used in this repository, in revision 4607" Could you please create another sun bug for this issue? Right, you can't use a bug/issue number in more than one change-set in the same reposit

Re: 7099119: Remove unused dlinfo local variable in launcher code

On 11/30/2012 03:10 PM, Shi Jun wrote: On 11/29/2012 6:40 PM, Alan Bateman wrote: On 29/11/2012 07:17, Shi Jun wrote: Hi all, Previously 7099119 is fixed in the following changeset: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/dd55467dd1f2, but this change is lost during the Mac port merging c