On 18.12.2013 06:18, huizhe wang wrote:
Why didn't you like this very short version? :
JAXP currently maintains a code level 1.5 (Apache Xerces at 1.4). While we're getting close to the
end of JAXP standalone, we may consider newer/advanced features in JDK9. But we'll get to that
discussion
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~joehw/jdk8/8029955/webrev/
Joe
Fine.
But: ERROR: Line 1216 should be removed !!!
Done, thanks.
Why didn't you like this very short version? :
JAXP currently maintains a code level 1.5 (Apache Xerces at 1.4). While
we're getting close to the end of JAXP sta
On 18.12.2013 00:45, huizhe wang wrote:
Thanks for the comments. I incorporated the suggested changes.
In terms of code format, for small source files, I would just hit the source->format button. For
big files like this one, it'd unfortunately create too much distraction from real changes.
h
Thanks for the comments. I incorporated the suggested changes.
In terms of code format, for small source files, I would just hit the
source->format button. For big files like this one, it'd unfortunately
create too much distraction from real changes.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~joehw/jdk8/802
Also you could increment fCurrentEntity.position at the end of the loop, save 1 "if" and indent
correctly with 8 spaces:
1166 for (; fCurrentEntity.position
Hi Joe,
I would use ’\t’ instead of 0x9, to stay consistent with ahead code:
1175 if (c == ’\t’) {
Lines 1214..122
Hi Joe,
I would use ’\t’ instead of 0x9, to stay consistent with ahead code:
1175 if (c == ’\t’) {
1176 storeWhiteSpace(fCurrentEntity.position-1);
Lines 1214..1221 could be simpler:
1214 if (whiteSpaceLen >= whiteSpaceLookup.length) {
1215
Joe,
I thought this looked OK also
On Dec 17, 2013, at 12:26 PM, huizhe wang wrote:
>
> On 12/17/2013 4:10 AM, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
>> Hi Joe,
>>
>> The fix looks good - though I wonder at whether incrementing
>> whiteSpaceLookup by a fix amount wouldn't be better than
>> doubling its length.
On 12/17/2013 4:10 AM, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
Hi Joe,
The fix looks good - though I wonder at whether incrementing
whiteSpaceLookup by a fix amount wouldn't be better than
doubling its length.
Both would be okay. The case, as demonstrated in the report, that there
are hundreds of LFs in an attr
Hi Joe,
The fix looks good - though I wonder at whether incrementing
whiteSpaceLookup by a fix amount wouldn't be better than
doubling its length.
best regards,
-- daniel
On 12/16/13 8:31 PM, huizhe wang wrote:
Hi,
This is a quick fix for a whitespace buffer that was not adjusted
properly in
Hi,
This is a quick fix for a whitespace buffer that was not adjusted
properly in one of the two cases. The buffer, whiteSpaceLookup, is
filled in two cases and adjusted properly the 2nd time. The code is
moved into a method storeWhiteSpace so that it's shared for the 1st case
as well.
Not
10 matches
Mail list logo
