On Tue, 18 May 2021 09:34:25 GMT, Julia Boes wrote:
> The filter operation `Consumer` that is passed to the factory methods can
> throw an unchecked exception. This change adds a note on the exception
> handling in that case. It also adds a clarification to `Filter::afterHandler`
> on the rela
The filter operation `Consumer` that is passed to the factory methods can throw
an unchecked exception. This change adds a note on the exception handling in
that case. It also adds a clarification to `Filter::afterHandler` on the
relation of the filter operation and the client receiving the resp
On Tue, 18 May 2021 09:34:25 GMT, Julia Boes wrote:
> The filter operation `Consumer` that is passed to the factory methods can
> throw an unchecked exception. This change adds a note on the exception
> handling in that case. It also adds a clarification to `Filter::afterHandler`
> on the rela
On Tue, 18 May 2021 09:49:26 GMT, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
>> The filter operation `Consumer` that is passed to the factory methods can
>> throw an unchecked exception. This change adds a note on the exception
>> handling in that case. It also adds a clarification to
>> `Filter::afterHandler` on th
On Tue, 18 May 2021 09:34:25 GMT, Julia Boes wrote:
> The filter operation `Consumer` that is passed to the factory methods can
> throw an unchecked exception. This change adds a note on the exception
> handling in that case. It also adds a clarification to `Filter::afterHandler`
> on the rela
> The filter operation `Consumer` that is passed to the factory methods can
> throw an unchecked exception. This change adds a note on the exception
> handling in that case. It also adds a clarification to `Filter::afterHandler`
> on the relation of the filter operation and the client receiving
On Wed, 19 May 2021 09:19:56 GMT, Julia Boes wrote:
>> The filter operation `Consumer` that is passed to the factory methods can
>> throw an unchecked exception. This change adds a note on the exception
>> handling in that case. It also adds a clarification to
>> `Filter::afterHandler` on the
> The filter operation `Consumer` that is passed to the factory methods can
> throw an unchecked exception. This change adds a note on the exception
> handling in that case. It also adds a clarification to `Filter::afterHandler`
> on the relation of the filter operation and the client receiving
On Tue, 18 May 2021 21:21:45 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> Please review this implementation of [JEP
>> 411](https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/411).
>>
>> The code change is divided into 3 commits. Please review them one by one.
>>
>> 1.
>> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/576161d15423f58281e38
> Please review this implementation of [JEP
> 411](https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/411).
>
> The code change is divided into 3 commits. Please review them one by one.
>
> 1.
> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/576161d15423f58281e384174d28c9f9be7941a1
> The essential change for this JEP, incl
On Wed, 19 May 2021 10:21:02 GMT, Julia Boes wrote:
>> The filter operation `Consumer` that is passed to the factory methods can
>> throw an unchecked exception. This change adds a note on the exception
>> handling in that case. It also adds a clarification to
>> `Filter::afterHandler` on the
On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 16:42:02 GMT, Evan Whelan wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Please review this fix for which corrects the order in which field values are
> returned from the `HttpURLConnection.getHeaderFields` and
> `URLConnection.getRequestProperties` methods.
>
> Currently, the implementation of the
On Sat, 2 Jan 2021 10:11:30 GMT, Jayashree S Kumar
wrote:
> Issue
>
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8243376
>
> Problem
>
> The scenario is:
> - Some specified target hostname resolves to two IP addresses (always the
> same address pair).
> - The DNS resolved order of the two ip
On Sun, 29 Nov 2020 07:54:23 GMT, Jamie Le Tual
wrote:
> Users have been able to send ICMP packets without the need for root
> privileges or the CAP_NET_RAW capability since at least kernel 3.11.
>
> For some time now, if the kernel parameter net.ipv4.ping_group_range included
> the gid of a
On Wed, 19 May 2021 13:47:53 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> Please review this implementation of [JEP
>> 411](https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/411).
>>
>> The code change is divided into 3 commits. Please review them one by one.
>>
>> 1.
>> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/576161d15423f58281e38
On Wed, 19 May 2021 13:47:53 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> Please review this implementation of [JEP
>> 411](https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/411).
>>
>> The code change is divided into 3 commits. Please review them one by one.
>>
>> 1.
>> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/576161d15423f58281e38
On Wed, 19 May 2021 13:47:53 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> Please review this implementation of [JEP
>> 411](https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/411).
>>
>> The code change is divided into 3 commits. Please review them one by one.
>>
>> 1.
>> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/576161d15423f58281e38
On Wed, 19 May 2021 18:26:25 GMT, Phil Race wrote:
>> Weijun Wang has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> fixing awt/datatransfer/DataFlavor/DataFlavorRemoteTest.java
>
> src/java.desktop/share/classes/java/awt/Component.java lin
On Wed, 19 May 2021 18:39:10 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> src/java.desktop/share/classes/java/awt/Container.java line 97:
>>
>>> 95: * @since 1.0
>>> 96: */
>>> 97: @SuppressWarnings("removal")
>>
>> Same issue as with Component. a > 5,000 line file that uses AccessController
>> in just 4
On Wed, 19 May 2021 18:44:06 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> Similar as the one above, it's because of
>>
>> static {
>> // Don't lazy-read because every app uses invalidate()
>> isJavaAwtSmartInvalidate = AccessController.doPrivileged(
>> new GetBooleanAction("jav
On Wed, 19 May 2021 18:38:39 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> src/java.desktop/share/classes/java/awt/Component.java line 217:
>>
>>> 215: * @author Sami Shaio
>>> 216: */
>>> 217: @SuppressWarnings("removal")
>>
>> Why is this placed on the *entire class* ??
>> This class is 10535 lines long
On Tue, 18 May 2021 21:44:43 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> Please review the test changes for [JEP
>> 411](https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/411).
>>
>> With JEP 411 and the default value of `-Djava.security.manager` becoming
>> `disallow`, tests calling `System.setSecurityManager()` need
>> `-Djav
On Wed, 19 May 2021 19:31:24 GMT, Phil Race wrote:
>> This happens when a deprecated method is called inside a static block. The
>> annotation can only be added to a declaration and here it must be the whole
>> class. The call in this file is
>>
>> s = java.security.AccessController.do
On Wed, 19 May 2021 21:53:35 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> That's a sad limitation of the annotation stuff then, but I don't think that
>> it is insurmountable.
>> You can define a static private method to contain this and call it from the
>> static initializer block.
>> Much better than applying
On Wed, 19 May 2021 22:04:57 GMT, Phil Race wrote:
>> Correct, there are ways to modify the code to make it more
>> annotation-friendly. We thought about whether it's good to do it before
>> adding the annotations or after it. Our decision now is to do it after
>> because it will be more easy
On Wed, 19 May 2021 22:14:20 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> I don't think it is a separate P4 enhancement (?) that someone will (maybe)
>> do next release.
>> I think it should all be taken care of as part of this proposed change.
>
> I just made it P3 (P4 was the default value), and I will target i
On Wed, 19 May 2021 23:50:04 GMT, Phil Race wrote:
>> I just made it P3 (P4 was the default value), and I will target it to 17
>> once JEP 411 is targeted 17. But I think it's probably not a good idea to
>> include it inside *this* PR. There are some middle ground where it's
>> debatable if a
On Thu, 20 May 2021 02:06:46 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> Well .. as an enhancement (P3 or otherwise) I can see it being dropped and
>> definitely if it misses the fork,
>> and I don't get why you can't do it here. And if it isn't done the JEP isn't
>> really ready.
>> I already pasted the patch
On Thu, 20 May 2021 02:09:57 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> I can make it a bug.
>>
>> I don't want to do it here is because it involves indefinite amount of
>> manual work and we will see everyone having their preferences. The more time
>> we spend on this PR the more likely there will be merge c
On Thu, 20 May 2021 04:05:23 GMT, Phil Race wrote:
>> By converting JDK-8267432 to a bug, there is an extra benefit that we can
>> fix it after RDP. So I'll convert it now.
>
> That is unfortunate, but nonetheless I think required to be done.
> We have acknowledeged this can't reasonably be call
On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 16:38:03 GMT, Сергей Цыпанов
wrote:
>> Non-static classes hold a link to their parent classes, which in many cases
>> can be avoided.
>
> Сергей Цыпанов has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
> commit since the last revision:
>
> 8261880: Remove s
31 matches
Mail list logo
