Thanks, all. I should have remembered the special casing of
java.util.concurrent in checkUnprivilegedlookupClass. It's surprising to
see different behavior crossing the java.util.concurrent boundary, as I
observed trying to access PriorityQueue.queue (fails!) vs.
PriorityBlockingQueue.queue (succ
The default is currently false in Jake (at least it's failing for me).
Is this going to be reversed in Jake so that Jake and JDK9 match behavior?
-Original Message-
From: Alan Bateman
Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2017 7:46 AM
To: Stephen Felts; jigsaw-dev
Subject: Re: jake -> jdk9/dev
On 2
On 29/04/2017 11:04, Stephen Felts wrote:
I think that the Java community made it clear that this feature should not be
included in JDK9, including going to the effort of writing a paper to that
effect at
https://docs.google.com/document/d/19H1iGUnyI4Y40U5sNVAmH0uLxcpNfYSjPIW3s0Rv5Ss/edit?usp=
I think that there is one large item in that change that should not be included.
The requirement for using -Djdk.attach.allowAttachSelf=true is in Jake but not
jdk9/dev.
I think that the Java community made it clear that this feature should not be
included in JDK9, including going to the effort o
We have again accumulated quite a few changes in the jake forest and I'd
like to bring to jdk9/dev next week. It's all small changes this time,
JDK-8178380 [1] has the summary.
-Alan
[1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8178380
