On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 16:35:02 GMT, Mandy Chung wrote:
>>> @kimbarrett your reworded text is okay. I think "if it initially had some
>>> other referent value" can be dropped.
>>>
>>> For a `Reference` constructed with a `null` referent, we can clarify in the
>>> spec that such reference object w
On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 05:22:57 GMT, Kim Barrett wrote:
>> @kimbarrett your reworded text is okay. I think "if it initially had some
>> other referent value" can be dropped.
>>
>> For a `Reference` constructed with a `null` referent, we can clarify in the
>> spec that such reference object will
On 20/10/2020 5:51 pm, Kim Barrett wrote:
On Oct 20, 2020, at 3:21 AM, David Holmes wrote:
On 20/10/2020 5:01 pm, Kim Barrett wrote:
On Oct 20, 2020, at 2:09 AM, David Holmes wrote:
I think that can be addressed by considering a Reference created with a null
referent to be immediately clear
> On Oct 20, 2020, at 3:21 AM, David Holmes wrote:
>
> On 20/10/2020 5:01 pm, Kim Barrett wrote:
>>> On Oct 20, 2020, at 2:09 AM, David Holmes wrote:
>>>
>>> I think that can be addressed by considering a Reference created with a
>>> null referent to be immediately cleared.
>> I think if it’s
On 20/10/2020 5:01 pm, Kim Barrett wrote:
On Oct 20, 2020, at 2:09 AM, David Holmes wrote:
On 20/10/2020 3:26 pm, Kim Barrett wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 03:25:45 GMT, Mandy Chung wrote:
@kimbarrett your reworded text is okay. I think "if it initially had some other
referent value" can be dr
> On Oct 20, 2020, at 2:09 AM, David Holmes wrote:
>
> On 20/10/2020 3:26 pm, Kim Barrett wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 03:25:45 GMT, Mandy Chung wrote:
>>> @kimbarrett your reworded text is okay. I think "if it initially had some
>>> other referent value" can be dropped.
>>>
>>> For a `Refere
On 20/10/2020 3:26 pm, Kim Barrett wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 03:25:45 GMT, Mandy Chung wrote:
@kimbarrett your reworded text is okay. I think "if it initially had some other
referent value" can be dropped.
For a `Reference` constructed with a `null` referent, we can clarify in the
spec tha
On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 03:25:45 GMT, Mandy Chung wrote:
> @kimbarrett your reworded text is okay. I think "if it initially had some
> other referent value" can be dropped.
>
> For a `Reference` constructed with a `null` referent, we can clarify in the
> spec that such reference object will never
On 20/10/2020 12:40 pm, Kim Barrett wrote:
On Oct 19, 2020, at 7:20 PM, Mandy Chung wrote:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 23:10:23 GMT, Mandy Chung wrote:
Looks good.
That's the crux of it: what exactly is meant by "the referent"? Does it
mean the original object that was used as the referent, or do
On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 23:17:32 GMT, Mandy Chung wrote:
>>> That's the crux of it: what exactly is meant by "the referent"? Does it
>>> mean the original object that was used as the referent, or does it mean
>>> the current value of the "referent" field inside the Reference (as get
>>> might return)
> On Oct 19, 2020, at 7:20 PM, Mandy Chung wrote:
>
> On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 23:10:23 GMT, Mandy Chung wrote:
>
>>> Looks good.
>>
>>> That's the crux of it: what exactly is meant by "the referent"? Does it
>>> mean the original object that was used as the referent, or does it mean
>>> the curren
Hi Mandy,
On 20/10/2020 9:20 am, Mandy Chung wrote:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 23:10:23 GMT, Mandy Chung wrote:
Looks good.
That's the crux of it: what exactly is meant by "the referent"? Does it
mean the original object that was used as the referent, or does it mean
the current value of the "ref
On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 23:10:23 GMT, Mandy Chung wrote:
>> Looks good.
>
>> That's the crux of it: what exactly is meant by "the referent"? Does it
>> mean the original object that was used as the referent, or does it mean
>> the current value of the "referent" field inside the Reference (as get
>>
On Fri, 16 Oct 2020 17:04:51 GMT, Mandy Chung wrote:
>> Kim Barrett has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
>> merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev
>> excludes the unrelated changes brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull
>> request contains 11 additional commits sinc
Hi Kim,
On 19/10/2020 9:29 pm, Kim Barrett wrote:
On Oct 18, 2020, at 5:36 PM, David Holmes wrote:
On 17/10/2020 1:23 am, Kim Barrett wrote:
src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/ref/Reference.java line 348:
346: * Tests if this reference object refers to {@code obj}. If {@code
obj}
> On Oct 18, 2020, at 5:36 PM, David Holmes wrote:
>
> On 17/10/2020 1:23 am, Kim Barrett wrote:
>>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/ref/Reference.java line 348:
>>>
346: * Tests if this reference object refers to {@code obj}. If
{@code obj} is
347: * {@code null
On 17/10/2020 1:23 am, Kim Barrett wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2020 05:41:17 GMT, David Holmes wrote:
Kim Barrett has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge
or a rebase. The incremental webrev
excludes the unrelated changes brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request
c
On Fri, 16 Oct 2020 18:27:31 GMT, Peter Levart wrote:
>> That sounds reasonable to me. Thanks for looking into it.
>
> I just want to note that if you have a `Reference ref` at hand, you
> can not just do:
> Referemce r = (Reference) ref;
> ...since those generic types are not related. You have
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 18:15:19 GMT, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
>> For the common cases, the application should know the type of the referent
>> and using `T` in `refersTo` will benefit
>> from the compiler type checking. For the unknown type case, cast to
>> `Reference` is not ideal but reasonable?
>>
On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 17:04:37 GMT, Kim Barrett wrote:
>> Finally returning to this review that was started in April 2020. I've
>> recast it as a github PR. I think the security concern raised by Gil
>> has been adequately answered.
>> https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-gc-dev/2020-A
On Fri, 16 Oct 2020 05:41:17 GMT, David Holmes wrote:
>> Kim Barrett has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
>> merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev
>> excludes the unrelated changes brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull
>> request contains 11 additional commits sin
On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 17:04:37 GMT, Kim Barrett wrote:
>> Finally returning to this review that was started in April 2020. I've
>> recast it as a github PR. I think the security concern raised by Gil
>> has been adequately answered.
>> https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-gc-dev/2020-A
On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 17:04:37 GMT, Kim Barrett wrote:
>> Finally returning to this review that was started in April 2020. I've
>> recast it as a github PR. I think the security concern raised by Gil
>> has been adequately answered.
>> https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-gc-dev/2020-A
> Finally returning to this review that was started in April 2020. I've
> recast it as a github PR. I think the security concern raised by Gil
> has been adequately answered.
> https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-gc-dev/2020-April/029203.html
> https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/
24 matches
Mail list logo
