Thanks Naoto, Alan, David and Venkat. The change is in.
Regards, Peter
Naoto Sato je 11. 12. 2017 ob 19:41 napisal:
Hi Peter,
Thanks for the tests. Looks good to me.
One nit: it should throw an Exception instead of AssertionError when
the test fails. No further review is needed.
> Can
Hi Peter,
Thanks for the tests. Looks good to me.
One nit: it should throw an Exception instead of AssertionError when the
test fails. No further review is needed.
> Can this go into JDK 10 ?
You can push it before the JDK 10 fork.
Naoto
On 12/9/17 2:33 PM, Peter Levart wrote:
Hi Naoto,
Hi Naoto,
Thank you for reviewing.
Naoto Sato je 06. 12. 2017 ob 20:41 napisal:
Hi Peter, Venkat,
Thank you for the fix. It looks good to me. Improved performance is a
nice bonus! Would you be able to provide with a regression test?
Sure, here it is:
Hi Peter, Venkat,
Thank you for the fix. It looks good to me. Improved performance is a
nice bonus! Would you be able to provide with a regression test?
Naoto
On 12/6/17 6:10 AM, Peter Levart wrote:
Hi,
On 12/06/2017 02:30 PM, Alan Bateman wrote:
I think this class is normally maintained
Hi,
On 12/06/2017 02:30 PM, Alan Bateman wrote:
I think this class is normally maintained on i18n-dev but I think
introducing the Cache object looks good and making this much easier to
understand.
-Alan
Thanks Alan, I'm forwarding to i18n-dev to see if maintainers of that
part of JDK
On 06/12/2017 11:32, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Peter,
On 6/12/2017 9:08 PM, Peter Levart wrote:
Hi David,
Can I consider your comment as a Review? I'd like to get this patch
into JDK10 if possible.
No sorry. I see what you're doing and I think it is okay but the
regular owners/maintainers of
Hi Peter,
On 6/12/2017 9:08 PM, Peter Levart wrote:
Hi David,
Can I consider your comment as a Review? I'd like to get this patch into
JDK10 if possible.
No sorry. I see what you're doing and I think it is okay but the regular
owners/maintainers of this code need to have the say on any
Hi David,
Can I consider your comment as a Review? I'd like to get this patch into
JDK10 if possible.
Regards, Peter
On 11/28/2017 08:17 AM, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Peter,
I like what you have done here. That said the general
thread-unsafeness of the code in SimpleTimeZone still causes me
Hi Peter,
I like what you have done here. That said the general thread-unsafeness
of the code in SimpleTimeZone still causes me concern - but what you are
doing is not breaking anything more than it is already broken.
David
On 25/11/2017 9:32 AM, Peter Levart wrote:
Hi,
@Venkat: Sorry for
Hi,
@Venkat: Sorry for late response, but I had to try something 1st.
This is an official request for reviewing a patch for fixing a data race
between cloning a SimpleTimeZone object and lazily initializing its 3
cache fields which may produce a clone with inconsistent cache state.
Here's
10 matches
Mail list logo
