On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 17:40:13 GMT, Mark Powers wrote:
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8285504
>
> JDK-8273046 is the umbrella bug for this bug. The changes were too large for
> a single code review, so it was decided to split into smaller chunks. This is
> one such chunk:
>
>
On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 18:29:35 GMT, Mark Powers wrote:
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8285504
>>
>> JDK-8273046 is the umbrella bug for this bug. The changes were too large for
>> a single code review, so it was decided to split into smaller chunks. This
>> is one such chunk:
>>
On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 16:23:25 GMT, Bradford Wetmore wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/javax/net/ssl/TrustManagerFactory.java line 82:
>>
>>> 80: String type;
>>> 81: type = GetPropertyAction.privilegedGetProperty(
>>> 82: "ssl.TrustManagerFactory.algorithm");
>>
On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 18:29:35 GMT, Mark Powers wrote:
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8285504
>>
>> JDK-8273046 is the umbrella bug for this bug. The changes were too large for
>> a single code review, so it was decided to split into smaller chunks. This
>> is one such chunk:
>>
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8285504
>
> JDK-8273046 is the umbrella bug for this bug. The changes were too large for
> a single code review, so it was decided to split into smaller chunks. This is
> one such chunk:
>
> open/src/java.base/share/classes/java/net
Mark Powers has
On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 17:29:53 GMT, Bradford Wetmore wrote:
>> My mistake. It's only the trim that you wanted removed, line 94.
>
> No, the API for Security.getProperty doesn't specify trimming, so suggest
> leaving the trim() part also.
Okay. Line 94 is back.
-
PR:
On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 16:37:35 GMT, Mark Powers wrote:
>> `Security.getProperty()` does not specify the value will be `trim()`.
>
> My mistake. It's only the trim that you wanted removed, line 94.
No, the API for Security.getProperty doesn't specify trimming, so suggest
leaving the trim() part
On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 16:22:43 GMT, Bradford Wetmore wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/javax/net/ssl/SSLSocketFactory.java line 92:
>>
>>> 90: static String getSecurityProperty(final String name) {
>>> 91: return AccessController.doPrivileged((PrivilegedAction)
>>> () -> {
>>>
On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 16:14:01 GMT, Bradford Wetmore wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/javax/net/ssl/KeyManagerFactory.java line 70:
>>
>>> 68: String type;
>>> 69: type = GetPropertyAction.privilegedGetProperty(
>>> 70: "ssl.KeyManagerFactory.algorithm");
>>
>>
On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 15:45:58 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> Mark Powers has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
>> merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes
>> brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains eight additional
>> commits
On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 02:33:49 GMT, Mark Powers wrote:
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8285504
>>
>> JDK-8273046 is the umbrella bug for this bug. The changes were too large for
>> a single code review, so it was decided to split into smaller chunks. This
>> is one such chunk:
>>
On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 15:47:44 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> Mark Powers has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
>> merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes
>> brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains eight additional
>> commits
On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 14:56:25 GMT, Michael McMahon wrote:
>> Michael Felt has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Adjusted and moved comments per review
>
> test/jdk/java/net/Inet4Address/PingThis.java line 49:
>
>> 47:
On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 02:33:49 GMT, Mark Powers wrote:
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8285504
>>
>> JDK-8273046 is the umbrella bug for this bug. The changes were too large for
>> a single code review, so it was decided to split into smaller chunks. This
>> is one such chunk:
>>
On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 20:22:42 GMT, Mark Powers wrote:
>> JDK-6725221 is about obtaining boolean properties, so not an exact match.
>> The suggested change is so easy, I'm going to do it.
>
> sun.security.action.GetPropertyAction::privilegedGetProperty doesn't trim the
> return value. Could this
On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 15:27:45 GMT, Michael Felt wrote:
>> with IP "0.0.0.0"
>>
>> - it either does nothing and ping fails, or, in some virtual environments
>> is treated as the default route address.
>> - IPv6 support for ::1 is available since 1977; however, ::0 is not accepted
>> as a vaild
16 matches
Mail list logo
