: david.hol...@oracle.com
> To: brandon.passan...@oracle.com
> Subject: Re: Code Review Request for Bug #4802647
> CC: core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net
>
> Brandon,
>
> I don't see the purpose of NewAbstractSet. It is identical to
> NewAbstractCollectio
d once bug 7123424 is fixed. This
is the reason for the instanceof checks that were recently added and
the added comments.
Thanks.
On 12/21/2011 7:52 AM, Jason Mehrens wrote:
> Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 10:12:02 +1000
> From: david.hol...@oracle.com
> To: brandon.passan...@oracle.com
> Su
comments.
Thanks.
On 12/21/2011 7:52 AM, Jason Mehrens wrote:
> Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 10:12:02 +1000
> From: david.hol...@oracle.com
> To: brandon.passan...@oracle.com
> Subject: Re: Code Review Request for Bug #4802647
> CC: core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net
>
> Brandon,
&
cle.com
> Subject: Re: Code Review Request for Bug #4802647
> CC: core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net
>
> Brandon,
>
> I don't see the purpose of NewAbstractSet. It is identical to
> NewAbstractCollection.
I would assume the intent was "extends AbstractSet"
> Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 10:12:02 +1000
> From: david.hol...@oracle.com
> To: brandon.passan...@oracle.com
> Subject: Re: Code Review Request for Bug #4802647
> CC: core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net
>
> Brandon,
>
> I don't see the purpose of Ne
On 20/12/2011 00:12, David Holmes wrote:
Brandon,
I don't see the purpose of NewAbstractSet. It is identical to
NewAbstractCollection.
Otherwise my only concern is as you raised previously, updating the
test to check existing subclasses causes new failures for ArrayList
and CopyOnWriteArray
Brandon,
I don't see the purpose of NewAbstractSet. It is identical to
NewAbstractCollection.
Otherwise my only concern is as you raised previously, updating the test
to check existing subclasses causes new failures for ArrayList and
CopyOnWriteArrayList. I'd suggest fixing ArrayList as part
This looks complete to me.
Mike
On Dec 19 2011, at 10:53 , Brandon Passanisi wrote:
> Hello core-libs. I was wondering if somebody could please review the
> following updated webrev for this bug. There was an e-mail thread regarding
> the first webrev [1] that prompted the changes in this we
Hello core-libs. I was wondering if somebody could please review the
following updated webrev for this bug. There was an e-mail thread
regarding the first webrev [1] that prompted the changes in this webrev.
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mduigou/4802647/1/webrev/
Bug URL: http://
On 01/12/2011 22:42, Brandon Passanisi wrote:
Hi Jason. Thanks for your response. I was thinking about how I can
improve the test using your suggestion. I could possibly do the
following:
1. Find all of the subclasses of AbstractCollection which override
removeAll(Collection) and which
Hi Jason. Thanks for your response. I was thinking about how I can
improve the test using your suggestion. I could possibly do the following:
1. Find all of the subclasses of AbstractCollection which override
removeAll(Collection) and which also contain the spec language
which specifi
Brandon,
> Are there any opinions on this from other Collections experts?
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mduigou/4802647/0/webrev/
Shouldn't the test include all collections included with the JDK? Any override
of these methods could repeat the same (bad) behavior.
Jason
On 11/21/2011 3:58 PM, David Holmes wrote:
On 22/11/2011 4:29 AM, Brandon Passanisi wrote:
Thank you for the review David. I'll make the changes to the test
program as you have suggested and I will also update the bug report with
the comments you have given. I'll then send out an updated webrev.
On 22/11/2011 4:29 AM, Brandon Passanisi wrote:
Thank you for the review David. I'll make the changes to the test
program as you have suggested and I will also update the bug report with
the comments you have given. I'll then send out an updated webrev. Just
to double-check, when you mention "But
Thank you for the review David. I'll make the changes to the test
program as you have suggested and I will also update the bug report with
the comments you have given. I'll then send out an updated webrev.
Just to double-check, when you mention "But I don't see a way around it"
in regards to
Hi Brandon,
On 19/11/2011 11:21 AM, Brandon Passanisi wrote:
Hello core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net. Please review the following patch
to fix Bug 4802647 (coll) NullPointerException not thrown by
AbstractCollection.retainAll/removeAll: The fix is quite small and I
have included a test program, all
16 matches
Mail list logo
