Hi everyone,
could you please review my change for JDK-7153400?
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~chegar/7153400/00/webrev/
http://ccc.us.oracle.com/7153400
It's a long expected fix for a minor issue in the ThreadPoolExecutor. This has
been agreed with Doug Lea. The exact same change (except for the
Thanks for doing this Pavel. I can sponsor this for you.
-Chris.
On 14/05/14 16:29, Pavel Rappo wrote:
Hi everyone,
could you please review my change for JDK-7153400?
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~chegar/7153400/00/webrev/
http://ccc.us.oracle.com/7153400
It's a long expected fix for a minor i
Hi Pavel;
The change and test looks good. Will the test be upstreamed or will Doug be
adding a similar test in his upstream?
Mike
On May 14 2014, at 08:29 , Pavel Rappo wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> could you please review my change for JDK-7153400?
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~chegar/715340
Hi Mike,
Unfortunately I don't know. I suppose it is better to rely on our own jdk
tests. The only thing I did was sent Doug 2 patches for the tck tests. But as
far as I can see he hasn't applied them yet. And I don't even know if he is
going to. Here they are:
--- src/test/tck/ThreadPoolExecu
On 05/14/2014 03:15 PM, Pavel Rappo wrote:
Hi Mike,
Unfortunately I don't know. I suppose it is better to rely on our own jdk
tests. The only thing I did was sent Doug 2 patches for the tck tests. But as
far as I can see he hasn't applied them yet. And I don't even know if he is
going to. Here t
Oh I see, thanks.
-Pavel
On 14 May 2014, at 20:56, Doug Lea wrote:
> On 05/14/2014 03:15 PM, Pavel Rappo wrote:
>> Hi Mike,
>>
>> Unfortunately I don't know. I suppose it is better to rely on our own jdk
>> tests. The only thing I did was sent Doug 2 patches for the tck tests. But as
>> far as
Hi Martin,
Thanks for you comments. I forgot indeed that awaitTermination indicates its
result by returning a boolean value rather than throwing TimeoutException. So
this should be fine now:
@@ -77,7 +77,10 @@
private static void dispose(ThreadPoolExecutor p) {
p.shutdownNow();
Martin, if I exclude the test can we push the change then?
-Pavel
On 14 May 2014, at 22:10, Martin Buchholz wrote:
> We added the necessary support for jdk9+ tests and added the test below,
> which I think suffices. I don't think a separate jtreg test is necessary.
> (Just need to make sure
