Re: RFR JDK-8029689: (spec) Reader.read(char[], int, int) throws unspecified IndexOutOfBoundsException

On 21/04/2015 1:24 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote: On 20/04/15 16:17, Lance Andersen wrote: Hi Pavel, So we are just documenting/clarifying the current behavior from what I can tell from the change? Looking at the testcase, it passes with the current JDK 9 ( and 8 ), so this is just documenting exi

Re: RFR: 8073357: schema1.xsd has wrong content. Sequence of the enum values has been changed

Hi Aleksej, You may also consider using a golden/expected output file to be compared with the output. It makes a test more readable (easily see what's expected), easier to maintain with a separated golden file than multiple literal strings in the test, and technically simpler logic (e.g. runS

Re: RFR: 8073357: schema1.xsd has wrong content. Sequence of the enum values has been changed

Hi Aleksej, The updates to the test seem reasonable. Best Lance On Apr 20, 2015, at 2:00 PM, Aleksej Efimov wrote: > Hello, > > The JDK9 schemagen tool hadn't preserved order of the enum values [1] and it > was fixed in standalone project and was synced to JDK as part of JAXWS > integration

Re: RFR 9: 8077350 Process API Updates Implementation Review (Due 4/23)

Hi Paul, On 4/20/2015 2:26 PM, Paul Sandoz wrote: On Apr 20, 2015, at 7:33 PM, Roger Riggs wrote: Hi Paul, There are statements in Process about the specified behavior of Processes created by ProcessBuilder. That's why I included them in the @implSpec clause. If @implSpec is only for the sp

Re: RFR 9: 8077350 Process API Updates Implementation Review (Due 4/23)

On Apr 20, 2015, at 7:33 PM, Roger Riggs wrote: > Hi Paul, > > There are statements in Process about the specified behavior of Processes > created by ProcessBuilder. That's why I included them in the @implSpec > clause. > If @implSpec is only for the specifics of the method itself then where

RFR: 8073357: schema1.xsd has wrong content. Sequence of the enum values has been changed

Hello, The JDK9 schemagen tool hadn't preserved order of the enum values [1] and it was fixed in standalone project and was synced to JDK as part of JAXWS integration [2]. Can I have a review for the 'test/javax/xml/ws/8046817/GenerateEnumSchema.java' test update [3] to include test case for

Re: RFR 9: 8077350 Process API Updates Implementation Review (Due 4/23)

Hi Paul, There are statements in Process about the specified behavior of Processes created by ProcessBuilder. That's why I included them in the @implSpec clause. If @implSpec is only for the specifics of the method itself then where should the behavior of ProcessBuilder created instances be sp

Re: RFR(xs): 6991580: IPv6 Nameservers in resolv.conf throws NumberFormatException

On Mon, 2015-04-20 at 12:24 -0400, Andrew Hughes wrote: > - Original Message - > > Adding in net-dev. > > > > On Mon, 2015-04-20 at 14:02 +0200, Severin Gehwolf wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > Could I please get a review and a sponsor for the following patch? > > > > > > The issue is that J

Re: RFR 9: 8077350 Process API Updates Implementation Review

ok, thanks, roger On 4/20/2015 11:57 AM, Thomas Stüfe wrote: Hi Roger, thanks! Maybe better: "When using ProcessHandles avoid assumptions about the state or liveness of the underlying process." -> "When using ProcessHandles avoid assumptions about liveness or identity of the underlying pro

Re: RFR 9: 8077350 Process API Updates Implementation Review (Due 4/23)

On Apr 20, 2015, at 5:49 PM, Roger Riggs wrote: > Hi Paul, > > On 4/20/2015 9:01 AM, Paul Sandoz wrote: >> Hi Roger, >> >> I am not sure you have the @implSpec/@implNote quite correct on the new >> methods of Process. >> >> For example, for Process.toHandle i would expect something like: >>

Re: RFR(xs): 6991580: IPv6 Nameservers in resolv.conf throws NumberFormatException

- Original Message - > Adding in net-dev. > > On Mon, 2015-04-20 at 14:02 +0200, Severin Gehwolf wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Could I please get a review and a sponsor for the following patch? > > > > The issue is that JDK's internal /etc/resolv.conf nameserver parsing > > does not properly ac

Re: RFR 9: 8077350 Process API Updates Implementation Review

Hi Thomas, I expanded the ProcessHandle class javadoc [1] paragraph to include the caution about process id reuse. Thanks, Roger [1] http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rriggs/ph-apidraft/java/lang/ProcessHandle.html On 4/18/2015 2:44 PM, Thomas Stüfe wrote: Hi Roger, On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 8:57

Re: RFR 9: 8077350 Process API Updates Implementation Review

Hi Roger, thanks! Maybe better: "When using ProcessHandles avoid assumptions about the state or liveness of the underlying process." -> "When using ProcessHandles avoid assumptions about liveness or identity of the underlying process." Regards, Thomas On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 5:53 PM, Roger Ri

Re: RFR 9: 8077350 Process API Updates Implementation Review (Due 4/23)

Hi Paul, On 4/20/2015 9:01 AM, Paul Sandoz wrote: Hi Roger, I am not sure you have the @implSpec/@implNote quite correct on the new methods of Process. For example, for Process.toHandle i would expect something like: ... @implSpec This implementation throws an instance of Unsupport

Re: RFR [9] 8038764: tidy warnings cleanup for javax.activation

On 20/04/2015 16:01, alexander stepanov wrote: Hello, Could you please review the fix http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avstepan/8038764/webrev.00/ for the following bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8038764 Just a minor HTML markup fix (few 'trimming empty ' warnings fixed). Probably t

Re: RFR JDK-8029689: (spec) Reader.read(char[], int, int) throws unspecified IndexOutOfBoundsException

On 20/04/15 16:17, Lance Andersen wrote: Hi Pavel, So we are just documenting/clarifying the current behavior from what I can tell from the change? Looking at the testcase, it passes with the current JDK 9 ( and 8 ), so this is just documenting existing behavior. > If so, this looks OK as

Re: RFR JDK-8029689: (spec) Reader.read(char[], int, int) throws unspecified IndexOutOfBoundsException

Hi Pavel, So we are just documenting/clarifying the current behavior from what I can tell from the change? If so, this looks OK assuming you have an approved CCC? The test seems fine. I am assuming there should not be any issues here but would be good to hear from others on this change as we

Re: RFR [9] 8038764: tidy warnings cleanup for javax.activation

Thanks! On 20.04.2015 18:10, Lance Andersen wrote: Looks fine. Need to get this into the upstream project though so they are not lost on the next update Best Lance On Apr 20, 2015, at 11:01 AM, alexander stepanov > wrote: Hello, Could you please re

Re: RFR [9] 8038764: tidy warnings cleanup for javax.activation

Looks fine. Need to get this into the upstream project though so they are not lost on the next update Best Lance On Apr 20, 2015, at 11:01 AM, alexander stepanov wrote: > Hello, > > Could you please review the fix > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avstepan/8038764/webrev.00/ > > for the followi

RFR JDK-8029689: (spec) Reader.read(char[], int, int) throws unspecified IndexOutOfBoundsException

Hi everyone, Could you please review my change for JDK-8029689 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~prappo/8029689/webrev.00/ --- There is a long-standing issue when platform implementations of java.io.Reader throw IndexOutOfBou

RFR [9] 8038764: tidy warnings cleanup for javax.activation

Hello, Could you please review the fix http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avstepan/8038764/webrev.00/ for the following bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8038764 Just a minor HTML markup fix (few 'trimming empty ' warnings fixed). Probably the code affected is an upstream. Regards, Alexa

Re: Optional.orElseChain ?

On 04/20/2015 01:39 PM, Paul Sandoz wrote: Hi Remi, I was gonna propose the same trick you mentioned in your last email :-) yes, it's the same as optional.map(Stream::of).orElseGet(() -> Stream.empty()) (I use orElseGet() because Stream.empty() is not a constant !). Similar tricks are po

Re: RFR 9: 8077350 Process API Updates Implementation Review (Due 4/23)

Hi Roger, I am not sure you have the @implSpec/@implNote quite correct on the new methods of Process. For example, for Process.toHandle i would expect something like: ... @implSpec This implementation throws an instance of UnsupportedOperationException and performs no other action. S

Re: RFR(xs): 6991580: IPv6 Nameservers in resolv.conf throws NumberFormatException

Adding in net-dev. On Mon, 2015-04-20 at 14:02 +0200, Severin Gehwolf wrote: > Hi, > > Could I please get a review and a sponsor for the following patch? > > The issue is that JDK's internal /etc/resolv.conf nameserver parsing > does not properly account for IPv6 addresses on Linux/Unix. While t

RFR(xs): 6991580: IPv6 Nameservers in resolv.conf throws NumberFormatException

Hi, Could I please get a review and a sponsor for the following patch? The issue is that JDK's internal /etc/resolv.conf nameserver parsing does not properly account for IPv6 addresses on Linux/Unix. While the code in com.sun.jndi.dns.DnsClient seems to support IPv6 addresses passed in via the se

Re: Optional.orElseChain ?

Hi Remi, I was gonna propose the same trick you mentioned in your last email :-) Similar tricks are possible for other cases like an equivalent of the recently added ifPresentOrElse, but that was considered a little obtuse. On Apr 17, 2015, at 11:37 PM, Remi Forax wrote: > Hi guys, > I was t

Re: RFR: JDK-8074859 Turn on warnings as error

Looks good to me. /Erik On 2015-04-17 14:52, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: With JDK-8074096, the number of warnings in the product was reduced to a minimum. This enables the next step, which is turning on the respective compiler flags that turns warnings into errors. In the long run, this is the