Thanks a lot!
-Pavel
On 14 Oct 2014, at 15:33, Chris Hegarty wrote:
> META-INF files in the webrev, two of which are in the wrong location. They
> are directly under 'META-INF’, where they should all be under
> ‘META-INF/services’. This is just a note for Pavel, when he follows up later
> wi
On 14 Oct 2014, at 15:15, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
> On 14/10/14 16:09, Chris Hegarty wrote:
>> On 14 Oct 2014, at 15:03, Pavel Rappo wrote:
>>
>>> OK, so what I will do for now is I exclude these 4 files and push without
>>> them. I'll create a new issue to add them later.
>>
>> That sounds like
On 14/10/14 16:09, Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 14 Oct 2014, at 15:03, Pavel Rappo wrote:
OK, so what I will do for now is I exclude these 4 files and push without them.
I'll create a new issue to add them later.
That sounds like a fine plan. This issue has already gone on for long enough,
and
On 14 Oct 2014, at 15:03, Pavel Rappo wrote:
> OK, so what I will do for now is I exclude these 4 files and push without
> them. I'll create a new issue to add them later.
That sounds like a fine plan. This issue has already gone on for long enough,
and I don’t think that the crooks of the cha
OK, so what I will do for now is I exclude these 4 files and push without them.
I'll create a new issue to add them later.
-Pavel
On 14 Oct 2014, at 14:44, Alan Bateman wrote:
> On 14/10/2014 14:34, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
>> Hi Pavel,
>>
>> I saw your mail on build-dev.
>> I guess the issue will
Here's the updated webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~prappo/8044627/webrev.01/
-Pavel
On 22 Sep 2014, at 09:55, Alan Bateman wrote:
> On 16/09/2014 12:12, Pavel Rappo wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> Could you please review my change for JDK-8044627?
>>
> Pavel - are you planning to send an upd
On 16/09/2014 12:12, Pavel Rappo wrote:
Hi everyone,
Could you please review my change for JDK-8044627?
Pavel - are you planning to send an updated webrev based on the
discussion so far?
The other thing that I meant to ask is whether this change will add
service configuration files for the
Daniel,
> So is it expected that modules (e.g. java.corba) will register
> their own service provider for the InitialContextFactory
> (I mean - using META-INF/services/)?
Alan's already answered this point. TCCL is the way to go. You are right.
> The difference however is that in this two case
On 9/16/14 4:14 PM, Pavel Rappo wrote:
Daniel,
Given that helper.loadClass uses the context class loader,
Should you also simply use
ServiceLoader loader =
ServiceLoader.load(InitialContextFactory.class);
at lines 680-681 ?
It needs to be the system class loader to allo
On 16/09/2014 15:14, Pavel Rappo wrote:
Daniel,
Given that helper.loadClass uses the context class loader,
Should you also simply use
ServiceLoader loader =
ServiceLoader.load(InitialContextFactory.class);
at lines 680-681 ?
It needs to be the system class loader to allo
Daniel,
> Given that helper.loadClass uses the context class loader,
> Should you also simply use
> ServiceLoader loader =
> ServiceLoader.load(InitialContextFactory.class);
> at lines 680-681 ?
It needs to be the system class loader to allow for JNDI providers that might
be
On 9/16/14 1:12 PM, Pavel Rappo wrote:
Hi everyone,
Could you please review my change for JDK-8044627?
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~prappo/8044627/webrev.00/
-Pavel
Hi Pavel,
Given that helper.loadClass uses the context class loader,
Should you also simply use
ServiceLoader loader =
Hi everyone,
Could you please review my change for JDK-8044627?
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~prappo/8044627/webrev.00/
-Pavel
13 matches
Mail list logo
