Hi Neil;
I think your message presents the perfect "Speak now or forever hold your
peace" opportunity. Barring any new substantive objections (I think you have
addressed the previous objections more than adequately) I believe we should
commit your patch to EnumSet and I will do so at the end of
On 3 March 2011 15:06, Alan Bateman wrote:
> I think the main thing with this proposal is getting agreement that it is
> the right thing to do. On one hand it avoids the set getting corrupted. On
> the other hand it's masking a problem and really part of a bigger issue.
> This isn't really my area
Neil Richards wrote:
Please advise me on what steps remain for this change to be committed.
I think the main thing with this proposal is getting agreement that it
is the right thing to do. On one hand it avoids the set getting
corrupted. On the other hand it's masking a problem and really pa
Please advise me on what steps remain for this change to be committed.
Thanks,
Neil
--
Unless stated above:
IBM email: neil_richards at uk.ibm.com
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
On 02/11/2011 02:59 PM, Neil Richards wrote:
Please find
where :)
an updated webrev zip file with corrected license text and
references to the RFE number, 7014637, in the testcases.
Thanks,
Neil
Rémi
Please find an updated webrev zip file with corrected license text and
references to the RFE number, 7014637, in the testcases.
Thanks,
Neil
--
Unless stated above:
IBM email: neil_richards at uk.ibm.com
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598.
Registered o
After thinking about it for a few days and talking the issue over with Alan
Bateman I suspect that Josh's fix would be rejected by CCC on the same grounds
as CR #4902078--a ConcurrentModificationException would be thrown where
previously none was thrown. This case is also probably less ambiguous
On 26 January 2011 01:57, Joshua Bloch wrote:
> I have serious reservations about this. It would be the first time (to my
> knowledge) that we deliberately swept a concurrent modification under the
> rug. If we go to the effort of detecting it (which you're doing), the least
> we should do is to
Mike et. al.,
I have serious reservations about this. It would be the first time (to my
knowledge) that we deliberately swept a concurrent modification under the
rug. If we go to the effort of detecting it (which you're doing), the least
we should do is to report it. Also, this file (and most of
Hi Neil;
This sounds like an excellent suggestion and the changes look good to me. I
have created an RFE change request (CR# 7014637) and posted the webrev at
cr.openjdk.java.net:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mduigou/7014637/webrev.00/webrev/
Mike
On Jan 25 2011, at 06:28 , Neil Richards wrote
10 matches
Mail list logo
