On 1/4/2013 3:10 PM, David DeHaven wrote:
Cmd line FAC LAUNCH_MODE JAVAFX_LAUNCH_MODE
java -jar fxapp.jarPresent LM_JAR LM_JAR
java -jar fxapp.jarNot present LM_JAR [LM_JAR]
java -cp fxapp.jar ... Not present LM_CLASS
It is a good cleanup and the change looks okay to me. I'll count on
your testing to verify if this fixes the intermittent problem :)
StreamPipe.run() catches InterruptedIOException and IOException and
ignores the error. Is it safe? Are the tests expected to fail in some
other way (missing o
Hi Darryl,
Thanks for looking. Was it last year already that I developed this patch?
Sheesh! :-)
s'marks
On 1/4/13 9:24 AM, Darryl Mocek wrote:
Hey Stuart,
the changes look good to me, although I didn't apply the patch and run the
tests. The only comment I have is to update all copyrig
I've pushed this as:
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/92c3b24a8e9a
s'marks
On 1/3/13 6:46 PM, Amy Lu wrote:
Following issue has been fixed, related test should be removed from ProblemList:
# 7194607
java/lang/instrument/VerifyLocalVariableTableOnRetransformTest.sh generic-all
Follow
Changeset: 92c3b24a8e9a
Author:smarks
Date: 2013-01-04 16:10 -0800
URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/92c3b24a8e9a
8005683: ProblemList.txt updates (01/2013)
Reviewed-by: mchung, alanb
Contributed-by: amy...@oracle.com
! test/ProblemList.txt
>>> Cmd line FAC LAUNCH_MODE
>>> JAVAFX_LAUNCH_MODE
>>> java -jar fxapp.jarPresent LM_JAR LM_JAR
>>> java -jar fxapp.jarNot present LM_JAR [LM_JAR]
>>> java -cp fxapp.jar ... Not present LM_CLASS
On 1/4/2013 12:27 PM, David DeHaven wrote:
Cmd line FAC LAUNCH_MODE JAVAFX_LAUNCH_MODE
java -jar fxapp.jarPresent LM_JAR LM_JAR
java -jar fxapp.jarNot present LM_JAR [LM_JAR]
java -cp fxapp.jar ... Not present LM_CLASS
> Cmd line FAC LAUNCH_MODE JAVAFX_LAUNCH_MODE
> java -jar fxapp.jarPresent LM_JAR LM_JAR
> java -jar fxapp.jarNot present LM_JAR [LM_JAR]
> java -cp fxapp.jar ... Not present LM_CLASSLM_CLASS
Many moons ago, I wrote a script to find missing @since tags in the JDK,
that may still be floating around somewhere in openjdk-land.
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 9:34 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
> Trivially, add @since 1.8 tags to the two new ForkJoinPool methods in 1.8.
>
Hi Daniel,
Yes, I agree with 3. As I said before, we should return an error if
factoryId != type.getName() since it indicates a configuration error.
Scenario 4 does exist, but it's beyond the current spec. Such an impl
should not use the default API.
The StAX spec is not always clear. My i
[pardon the data shuffle…]
Cmd line FAC LAUNCH_MODE JAVAFX_LAUNCH_MODE
java -jar fxapp.jarPresent LM_JAR LM_JAR
java -jar fxapp.jarNot present LM_JAR [LM_JAR]
java -cp fxapp.jar ... Not present LM_CLASS
Trivially, add @since 1.8 tags to the two new ForkJoinPool methods in 1.8.
diff -r 6d814b2f9112
src/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/ForkJoinPool.java
--- a/src/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/ForkJoinPool.java Fri Jan
04 11:34:17 2013 +
+++ b/src/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/Fo
Hey Stuart,
the changes look good to me, although I didn't apply the patch and
run the tests. The only comment I have is to update all copyrights to 2013.
Darryl
On 01/03/2013 06:39 PM, Stuart Marks wrote:
Hi all,
Please review these additional RMI test cleanups:
http://cr.openjdk.jav
David,
It is looking good, a couple of comments and requests:
1. LauncherHelper.java: Can you please document the table below in
LauncherHelper.java, and a note to refer to LauncherHelper.java in
FXLauncherTest.java this will make it easier to understand everything
in the future.
2.
Hi guys,
Happy new year to you all! And apologies for this long email :-)
I think we still haven't converged on this issue in
javax.xml.stream - so let me make a recap.
The issue is for the newInstance/newFactory methods
that take a factoryId parameter, in the factories for
the javax.xml.stream
On 20-12-2012 12:07 AM, Kumar Srinivasan wrote:
Hello Jayashree,
a. you are referencing a bug which has already been fixed, is there a
new one for this ?
b. with regards to the fix, I don't quite understand the issue, could
you please
provide a use case ?
c. your regression test doe
I took a look over the jdk src and test changes. Given the comments
below, it looks ok to me.
-Chris.
On 04/01/2013 07:54, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 02/01/2013 18:53, Mandy Chung wrote:
I reviewed the src/test changes in the jdk repo and have a few comments:
Attributes.java:
568 * {@code Name}
Changeset: 6d814b2f9112
Author:chegar
Date: 2013-01-04 11:34 +
URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/6d814b2f9112
8005638: Less secure Authentication schemes should work when more secure
schemes are not available
Reviewed-by: alanb
! src/share/classes/sun/net/www/pro
Changeset: 438d37d16417
Author:chegar
Date: 2013-01-04 11:18 +
URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/438d37d16417
8005659: Add tools/pack200/AttributeTests.java to exclude list
(ProblemList.txt) until pack200 updated to support method parameters
Reviewed-by: mchung, k
19 matches
Mail list logo
