Review Request: JDK-8161121: VM::isSystemDomainLoader should consider platform class loader

With deprivileging, several modules of the runtime are mow defined to the platform class loader. VM::isSystemDomainLoader is extended to detect if the given class loader is boot loader or platform loader. Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mchung/jdk10/webrevs/8161121/webrev.00/index.html t

Re: RFR: JDK-8185464: Link issues in java.xml module

On 07/27/2017 04:58 PM, huizhe wang wrote: Looks good to me too. A side issue, the 'fixedNav' block is preventing the browser from showing the exact content of an inner anchor, the Nav section covers that much of content as its height. If I click on the link to CatalogFeatures.html#PREFER f

Re: RFR: JDK-8185464: Link issues in java.xml module

Looks good to me too. A side issue, the 'fixedNav' block is preventing the browser from showing the exact content of an inner anchor, the Nav section covers that much of content as its height. If I click on the link to CatalogFeatures.html#PREFER for example, I'd get to see DEFER. Best, Joe

Re: [10] RFR 8134512 : provide Alpha-Numeric (logical) Comparator

Hi Ivan, I think this is an interesting avenue to explore adding to the platform. The idea of sorting this way is pretty subtle and it seems to come up frequently, so it seems valuable. There are some issues that warrant further discussion, though. Briefly: 1. Should this be in the JDK? 2. W

Re: RFR: JDK-8185365 Tidy up leftover dead code after JDK-8136570

Some ancient history: I wrote those ProcessBuilder tests back in 2005 and tripped over the changes to NLSPATH and XFILESEARCHPATH. I filed a bug back then, but it did not get fixed. I rediscovered those changes a decade later when putenv/getenv was found to be the root cause of SIGSEGV in real wo

Re: RFR: JDK-8185464: Link issues in java.xml module

> On Jul 27, 2017, at 5:10 PM, Jonathan Gibbons > wrote: > > Lance, > > It is intentional that the Author designation has disappeared from the > javax.xml.datatype package summary. I was just about to send another email, as I realized that we were not using -author after I hit send. Thank

Re: RFR: JDK-8185464: Link issues in java.xml module

Lance, It is intentional that the Author designation has disappeared from the javax.xml.datatype package summary. The following lines 154 * 155 * Author mailto:jeff.sut...@sun.com";>Jeff Suttor were normalized to 152 * @author mailto:jeff.sut...@sun.com";>Jeff Suttor and since w

Re: RFR: JDK-8185464: Link issues in java.xml module

Hi Jon, Overall it looks good. Maybe it is my browser, but I do not see the Author tag in the DataType package summary though it is there in JDK 8 and looks like it should still display unless I am missing something… Best Lance > On Jul 27, 2017, at 4:35 PM, Jonathan Gibbons > wrote: > > Co

RFR: JDK-8185464: Link issues in java.xml module

Continuing the documentation cleanup: Please review the following simple changes to the API documentation for the java.xml module, to address issues with links in these files. Some missing ids have been declared as appropriate. The issue with a mailto: link in the public API to an obsolete ad

Re: RFR: JDK-8185365 Tidy up leftover dead code after JDK-8136570

Ok by me too ... it would not have crossed my mind to look at ProcessBuilder but I suppose it was trying to support the now deleted behaviours. -phil. On 7/27/17, 6:29 AM, Alan Bateman wrote: On 26/07/2017 22:20, Martin Buchholz wrote: 1. JDK-8185365

Re: [10] RFR(M) 8182701: Modify JVMCI to allow Graal Compiler to expose platform MBean

On 27/07/2017 10:07, Jaroslav Tulach wrote: : Yes, it seems like a desirable goal to let Graal compiler work with just java.base. Is there a description how to build JDK9/10 with just java.base that I could follow and test against? You can use jlink to create a run-time image that only contains

Re: RFR: JDK-8185365 Tidy up leftover dead code after JDK-8136570

On 26/07/2017 22:20, Martin Buchholz wrote: 1. JDK-8185365 Tidy up leftover dead code after JDK-8136570 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~martin/webrevs/openjdk10/post-8136570-tidy/ This looks okay to me. -Alan

Re: RFR: JDK-8185365 Tidy up leftover dead code after JDK-8136570

Look fine Martin. Roger On 7/26/2017 5:20 PM, Martin Buchholz wrote: 1. JDK-8185365 Tidy up leftover dead code after JDK-8136570 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~martin/webrevs/openjdk10/post-8136570-tidy/

Re: RFR 8184961: jdk.test.lib.util.FileUtils.deleteFileWithRetry0 should wait for absence of a file

> On 26 Jul 2017, at 21:22, Andrey Nazarov wrote: > > Hi, > > Please review this simple documentation patch > > diff -r a133a7d1007b test/lib/jdk/test/lib/util/FileUtils.java > --- a/test/lib/jdk/test/lib/util/FileUtils.java Tue Jul 25 17:04:46 > 2017 -0700 > +++ b/test/lib/jdk/test/lib

Re: [10] RFR(M) 8182701: Modify JVMCI to allow Graal Compiler to expose platform MBean

Thanks for your review Mandy. >> Mandy Chung : 25.07.17 @ 11:39 << > > On Jul 25, 2017, at 1:33 AM, Doug Simon wrote: > >> On 25 Jul 2017, at 01:37, Mandy Chung wrote: > >> > >> Vladimir, > >> > >> I believe you don’t want to add the dependency from JVMCI to > >> java.management. Otherwise,