I agree JSObject.getWindow(Applet) should have forRemoval=true, as I raised in
awt-dev thread. The confusion there was when the API marked forRemoval=true in
JDK 9 and when it should really be removed.
Mandy
> On Jun 13, 2016, at 12:53 PM, Philip Race wrote:
>
> Alan,
>
> See the comment h
On 13/06/2016 16:02, Mandy Chung wrote:
I see. I’m fine with what you have. We should enhance the jlink testlibrary
to run java from a run-time image created for a test to run.
I'm okay with it too.
-Alan
Alan,
See the comment here :
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/awt-dev/2016-June/011478.html
Probably you should chime in directly on that discussion with such input ..
-phil.
On 6/13/16, 12:47 PM, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 13/06/2016 20:26, Philip Race wrote:
PS .. also you probably sh
On 13/06/2016 20:26, Philip Race wrote:
PS .. also you probably should just suppress lint on the jdk.jsobject
module
The change you propose to JSObject is going to cause a potential conflict
with the ongoing review discussion about this here :-
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/awt-dev
PS .. also you probably should just suppress lint on the jdk.jsobject
module
The change you propose to JSObject is going to cause a potential conflict
with the ongoing review discussion about this here :-
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/awt-dev/2016-June/011472.html
-phil.
On 6/13/16,
> On Jun 13, 2016, at 4:38 AM, Claes Redestad wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> afraid I found some subtle bugs with some tests I forgot to check earlier:
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~redestad/8159334/webrev.02/
This looks fine. It’d be good if you verify with -testset core to get a good
coverage.
Man
Hmm .. given that the majority of the jdk changes are in client -
specifically
swing & accessibility - including the swing mailing list would have
increased the
likelihood of the right people clicking on this webrev link.
IMO, we should remove these unusable fields from the Swing API - where
Hi Jon,
i've got an exception trying to reference in a module-info.java some modular
jars generated by ASM,
i suppose there is a bug in the module-info generated by ASM but i'm not able
to find it (javap is ok with the code ?)
Given that this exception is thrown by javac, it's likely that you can
Hello,
There is:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8153362
which is about a new warning that should be produced by javac when
exported API refers to types not exported/accessible to the API clients.
I've put my current javac change here:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jlahoda/8153362/lang
> On Jun 12, 2016, at 11:10 PM, Masayoshi Okutsu
> wrote:
>
> On 6/11/2016 5:53 AM, Mandy Chung wrote:
>>> On Jun 10, 2016, at 12:08 AM, Masayoshi Okutsu
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> (re-sending to include jigsaw-dev)
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Please review fixes for 8158272 and 8158468. The test had seve
On 6/10/16 8:16 PM, mark.reinh...@oracle.com wrote:
2016/6/10 7:00:55 -0700, coleen.phillim...@oracle.com:
...
The difference between these module options and the other non-conforming
options is that the others actually do something in the JVM. The module
options only set properties for the
On 2016-06-13 14:01, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 13/06/2016 12:38, Claes Redestad wrote:
Hi,
afraid I found some subtle bugs with some tests I forgot to check
earlier:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~redestad/8159334/webrev.02/
- conceals() is expected to return an unmodified test
- need to cons
On 13/06/2016 12:38, Claes Redestad wrote:
Hi,
afraid I found some subtle bugs with some tests I forgot to check
earlier:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~redestad/8159334/webrev.02/
- conceals() is expected to return an unmodified test
- need to consistently use the supplied packages in the pl
Hi,
afraid I found some subtle bugs with some tests I forgot to check earlier:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~redestad/8159334/webrev.02/
- conceals() is expected to return an unmodified test
- need to consistently use the supplied packages in the plugin's
ModuleDescriptorBuilder
As a bonus I n
On 13/06/2016 10:26, Claes Redestad wrote:
Thanks for catching that, updated in-place.
Thanks, looks good.
On 2016-06-13 09:47, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 13/06/2016 08:37, Claes Redestad wrote:
Hi,
please review this patch to remove the set of concealed packages from
ModuleDescriptor and instead only calculate it on demand.
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~redestad/8159334/webrev.01/
Bug: https:
On 13/06/2016 08:37, Claes Redestad wrote:
Hi,
please review this patch to remove the set of concealed packages from
ModuleDescriptor and instead only calculate it on demand.
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~redestad/8159334/webrev.01/
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8159334
Hi,
please review this patch to remove the set of concealed packages from
ModuleDescriptor and instead only calculate it on demand.
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~redestad/8159334/webrev.01/
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8159334
The conceals() method is currently used pri
18 matches
Mail list logo
