Code changes look fine.
Thanks
Max
On 06/15/2011 10:28 AM, Joe Darcy wrote:
Hello.
Please review this change to replace use of private two-argument equals
methods with the platform Objects.equals method introduced in JDK 7:
7041252 Use j.u.Objects.equals in security classes
http://cr.openjdk.
Hello.
Please review this change to replace use of private two-argument equals
methods with the platform Objects.equals method introduced in JDK 7:
7041252 Use j.u.Objects.equals in security classes
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/7041252.0/
Patch below.
I ran the java/security and s
Changeset: 4e7a9fa84dea
Author:darcy
Date: 2011-06-14 12:31 -0700
URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/4e7a9fa84dea
7054669: javadoc warnings from java.awt.Toolkit
Reviewed-by: anthony
! src/share/classes/java/awt/Toolkit.java
Changeset: 08fdfdb19ad6
Author:coffeys
Date: 2011-06-14 18:05 +0100
URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/08fdfdb19ad6
7049774: UID construction appears to hang if time changed backwards
Reviewed-by: alanb, dholmes, chegar, mduigou
! src/share/classes/java/rmi/server/UID.
Without L104, array is empty, and L108 and L112 fill zeros into buffers.
I also just noticed that the dummy class loaders are only used in
samevm. When running as othervm or standalone, findClass() method is
never called.
It seems in othervm mode, the TestClass.class is in the same directory
I was thinking the same thing. I'll file a bug to have this fixed in JDK 8.
--Sean
On 06/14/2011 08:43 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
In fact this looks like a good candidate for try-with-resources.
-Chris.
On 06/14/11 12:26 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
It seems to me this incorrect advice should be
Weijun Wang wrote:
Hi Alan
The last excluded test in jdk_security1:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~weijun/7054428/webrev.00/
I'm not an NIO expert, but the test looks too wrong. Is there any
chance for it to pass in the last 8 years?
I don't think L104-105 is needed. I agree with L109 and L1
Weijun Wang wrote:
Hi Alan
The last excluded test in jdk_security1:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~weijun/7054428/webrev.00/
I'm not an NIO expert, but the test looks too wrong. Is there any
chance for it to pass in the last 8 years?
I don't think L104-105 is needed. I agree with L109 and L1
In fact this looks like a good candidate for try-with-resources.
-Chris.
On 06/14/11 12:26 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
It seems to me this incorrect advice should be removed from the
documentation, like this:
diff -r 7a341c412ea9 -r 77b101812a2e
src/share/classes/java/security/KeyStore.java
---
It seems to me this incorrect advice should be removed from the
documentation, like this:
diff -r 7a341c412ea9 -r 77b101812a2e
src/share/classes/java/security/KeyStore.java
--- a/src/share/classes/java/security/KeyStore.java Tue Jun 07 14:01:12
2011 -0700
+++ b/src/share/classes/java/securit
Hi Alan
The last excluded test in jdk_security1:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~weijun/7054428/webrev.00/
I'm not an NIO expert, but the test looks too wrong. Is there any chance
for it to pass in the last 8 years?
Thanks
Max
Original Message
*Change Request ID*: 7054428
11 matches
Mail list logo
