On 3/27/2014 6:36 AM, Ivan Gerasimov wrote:
Now, I updated the webrev with the additional delay as you suggested:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~igerasim/8038333/2/webrev/
Thanks for the updated patch, Ivan and also Peter for the suggestion to
delay to give a chance for the threads to wait on the
John,
unfortunately, I've already pushed my changes w/o junit annotation. But
I have the dirty patch which adds "jtreg support" to netbeans:
1. add test.single action for test folder to 'ide-actions' section in
JDK project -- jdk/make/netbeans/j2se/nbproject/project.xml:
Hello again!
A few hours ago, I wrote:
[…]
>
> I’m attaching my test code, which I hope is correct and readable.
It seems that the list software stripped off the attachment with the
test program, so here it is again, inline: :-/
// This document is encoded in UTF-8, with no BOM and with LF l
On Mar 28, 2014, at 2:29 AM, Vladimir Ivanov
wrote:
> PS: John mentioned recently that there's a convention for java/lang/invoke
> tests to be in JUnit format. I'm not sure it'll improve the code in any way
> (maybe TestNG will?). I hope John will express his opinion on this, if it's
> import
Hello!
I’m using IcedTea 2.4.5 for OpenJDK 7 on Gentoo. This includes JAXP
revision 8fe156ad49e2 (in the IcedTea repos) which again seems to
contain jdk7u51-b31[0] – which again is revision 626e76f127a4 in the
OpenJDK repo jdk7u, as far as I can see. Oh well, you’ll probably know
better about all
--- Original message ---
From: "Marek Kozieł"
Date: 29 March 2014, 18:02:06
> Main problem is fact that in long chain you cannot be sure if type
> changed and on which object you executing method. Now chain
> constructions are so rare that you remember them all.
> After such change every call
> The number of cases that this dramatically increases readability are well
> described. A single concrete counterexample would help.
>
I Use Builders which are created especially to be called in chain
mode, so even after a while code is 100% readable. But when we assume
that void could be replac
Hi Sergey,
I recall seeing two recommendations (Mine and Mikes) not to add the
macro and
just use the ternary form where it is needed.
How many places in the code (presumed to be AWT) is this needed?
With the name IS_JNI_TRUE, I would expect it to expand to:
#define IS_JNI_TRUE(obj) ((obj ==
Igor,
Thanks for review.
Should be “dropped”.
fixed
But more comments would be appreciated. It’s huge and really hard to understand.
sure, I'll add them during future improvements.
Igor
On 03/29/2014 05:07 AM, Igor Veresov wrote:
Typo in CatchExceptionTest.java:
66 private int drope
