Hi Roger,
Thank you for reviewing, removed the redundant checking and pushed the code.
-Hamlin
On 2016/12/16 22:13, Roger Riggs wrote:
Hi Hamlin,
Yes, the logic would be clearer; and I would also remove the (now)
redundant checking.
Roger
On 12/15/2016 9:42 PM, Hamlin Li wrote:
Hi Rog
Hi Hamlin,
Yes, the logic would be clearer; and I would also remove the (now)
redundant checking.
Roger
On 12/15/2016 9:42 PM, Hamlin Li wrote:
Hi Roger, Daniel,
Thank you for reviewing.
On 2016/12/15 22:45, Roger Riggs wrote:
Hi Hamlin,
If this is supposed to fix the call from line 68
Hi Roger, Daniel,
Thank you for reviewing.
On 2016/12/15 22:45, Roger Riggs wrote:
Hi Hamlin,
If this is supposed to fix the call from line 68: then doesn't the
test for reg != null
at line 70 already have the same effect?
Please consider the situation: LocateRegistry.createRegistry(port) in
Hi Hamlin,
If this is supposed to fix the call from line 68: then doesn't the test
for reg != null
at line 70 already have the same effect?
Roger
On 12/14/2016 10:19 PM, Hamlin Li wrote:
Would you please review the below patch?
bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8171133
webrev:
Hi Hamlin,
Looks good, but I would suggest to rename the parameter
'remoteOk' into something more natural, like 'shouldFail'.
This should better help to understand the logic in createReg,
which otherwise appears a bit obscure.
No need to regenerate the webrev.
best regards,
-- daniel
On 15/1
Would you please review the below patch?
bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8171133
webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mli/8171133/webrev.00/
java/rmi/registry/reexport/Reexport.java, there is a missing case check
in createReg(..): if LocateRegistry.createRegistry(port) return null
