Re: RFR JDK-8165640: Enhance jar tool to allow module-info in versioned directories but not in base in modular multi-release jar files

> On Feb 10, 2017, at 6:06 PM, Xueming Shen wrote: > > updated to use stream style. > > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8165640 > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sherman/8165640/webrev Looks okay. A minor point is that you can use foreach instead of toArray but

Re: RFR JDK-8165640: Enhance jar tool to allow module-info in versioned directories but not in base in modular multi-release jar files

On 2/10/17, 2:30 PM, Paul Sandoz wrote: We can make jar -d output similiar to `java —-list-modules` and have the entry name next to the module name in the same line. module hi (module-info.class) module hi (META-INF/versions/10/module-info.class) updated to use the suggested format.

Re: RFR JDK-8165640: Enhance jar tool to allow module-info in versioned directories but not in base in modular multi-release jar files

> On 10 Feb 2017, at 13:01, Mandy Chung wrote: > > >> On Feb 10, 2017, at 7:48 AM, Xueming Shen wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Please help review the changes for >> >> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8165640 >>

Re: Review Request: JDK-8173712: Rename JAVA_OPTIONS environment variable to JDK_JAVA_OPTIONS

> On Feb 7, 2017, at 10:47 PM, Alan Bateman wrote: > > On 07/02/2017 21:16, Mandy Chung wrote: > >> Henry, Kumar, >> >> Can you please review this patch: >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mchung/jdk9/webrevs/8173712/webrev.00/ >> >> JAVA_OPTIONS was introduced by

Re: RFR [JAXP] JDK-8170192 Regression in XML Transform caused by JDK-8087303

+1 from me too. Thanks, Joe On 2/10/2017 5:25 AM, Daniel Fuchs wrote: Hi Frank, Thanks for fixing this! I imported your patch and played with it a bit. Also ran the jaxp test. Both issues reported have indeed disappeared. So that's a +1 from me. best regards, -- daniel On 10/02/17

Re: RFR JDK-8165640: Enhance jar tool to allow module-info in versioned directories but not in base in modular multi-release jar files

> On Feb 10, 2017, at 7:48 AM, Xueming Shen wrote: > > Hi, > > Please help review the changes for > > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8165640 > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sherman/8146486/webrev 1781 sb.append("\n[").append(ename).append("]”); 1786

RFR 8174728: Mark Java EE modules deprecated and for removal

Hi all, This is a request to review marking the Java EE based modules as deprecated. The corba module was already updated. Best Lance ljanders-mac:dev-annotations ljanders$ cd jdk ljanders-mac:jdk ljanders$ hg diff diff -r ed26eebc8c88

Re: RFR: JDK-8173094 Error in API documentation for SwingWorker

Hi Sean, As per your suggestion, I have corrected those points. Please find the link below for further review. http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rpatil/ababroy/8173094/webrev.01/ Thanks, Abhijit On 2/10/2017 10:37 PM, Seán

RE: jdk10 : simplify jexec build settings

Hello Erik, thanks for the comments . >>Then there is handling for macosx left , but the build is not enabled for >>macosx, does it still make sense to include the macosx handling (there is >>even a separate jexec.c for macosx) : > >This is indeed weird. I don't think we ever built jexec for

RE: jdk10 : simplify jexec build settings

I compared the jexec.c versions for macosx and unix ( jdk/src/java.base/macosx/native/launcher/jexec.cand jdk/src/java.base/unix/native/launcher/jexec.c ) And to me it looks like the unix version could be used for macosx too (just in case there is a need to reenable the build of

Re: RFR: JDK-8173094 Error in API documentation for SwingWorker

Hi Abhijit, you'll need to correct the Copyright year format in your edits. It needs to be "Copyright (c) , , Oracle..." format. For the ZipFile change, you need to use lower case 's' in @since. Looks good otherwise. regards, Sean. On 10/02/17 10:51, Abhijit Roy wrote: Hi all, Please

RFR JDK-8165640: Enhance jar tool to allow module-info in versioned directories but not in base in modular multi-release jar files

Hi, Please help review the changes for https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8165640 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sherman/8146486/webrev There are two changes (1) to use the versioned module-info as the module descriptor to validate the versioned entries, if the root/base

Re: RFR [JAXP] JDK-8170192 Regression in XML Transform caused by JDK-8087303

Hi Frank, Thanks for fixing this! I imported your patch and played with it a bit. Also ran the jaxp test. Both issues reported have indeed disappeared. So that's a +1 from me. best regards, -- daniel On 10/02/17 11:03, Frank Yuan wrote: Hi All Would you like to review

RE: jdk10 : simplify jexec build settings

Hi Eric, thanks for the comment, I think I'll remove the macosx source file . Btw. is there already some test for jexec (a "fast grep" through the jdk tests did not show me much) ? Best regards, Matthias From: Erik Joelsson [mailto:erik.joels...@oracle.com] Sent: Freitag, 10. Februar 2017

RFR [JAXP] JDK-8170192 Regression in XML Transform caused by JDK-8087303

Hi All Would you like to review http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~fyuan/8174025/webrev.00/? Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8174025 JDK-8087303 introduced 2 issues: 1. Flaw when xlst uses disable-output-escaping attribute 2. Eat the whitespace between html inline

RFR: JDK-8173094 Error in API documentation for SwingWorker

Hi all, Please review the java doc fix for the below Bug: Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8173094 Description: Error in API documentation for SwingWorker Webrev-http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rpatil/ababroy/8173094/webrev.00/ I have addressed some other doc issues which I

RE: RFR: 8029019: (ann) Optimize annotation handling in core reflection

Hi Claes, > > I think this all seems reasonable, but subtle behavior changes like this > needs more scrutiny than I can provide. I've discussed this offline > with Joe and sadly concluded it's probably too much, too late for 9 at > this point. > > Hope you don't mind re-targetting this to JDK

Re: jdk10 : simplify jexec build settings

Since the file has never been built, I would say remove the macosx source file. You can point directly to the unix source dir if you prefer too. No need to have dead logic for macosx in the makefile. /Erik On 2017-02-09 15:27, Baesken, Matthias wrote: I compared the jexec.c versions for