Re: RFR JDK-7092821 "java.security.Provider.getService() is synchronized and became scalability bottleneck"

2018-12-13 Thread Valerie Peng
If I recall correctly, "initialized" and checkInitialized() method are meant to prevent unauthorized creation of Provider object either through inheritance or deserialization. Thus, they should not be removed unless we are sure that the original issue are no longer of concern. Thanks, Valer

Re: RFR 6722928: Support SSPI as a native GSS-API provider

2018-12-13 Thread Nico Williams
Another way to avoid hand-coded SPNEGO here would be to use SSPI for SPNEGO. That could negotiate Kerberos or NTLM, but I do believe there's a way to tell it to only negotiate Kerberos -- I'm not terribly familiar with the details, but I'm pretty sure that Martin Rex's GSS->SSPI shim handles this.

Re: RFR JDK-7092821 "java.security.Provider.getService() is synchronized and became scalability bottleneck"

2018-12-13 Thread Nico Williams
On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 11:48:26AM -0800, Valerie Peng wrote: > If anyone is still reviewing this and need more time, please let me know > soon. Otherwise, I will proceed with integration this afternoon. One comment: - checkInitialized() in java.security.Provider seems pointless -- initialized

Re: RFR 8214568: Use {@systemProperty} for definitions of system properties

2018-12-13 Thread Roger Riggs
Hi Max, On 12/13/2018 10:35 AM, Weijun Wang wrote: Hi Roger, I didn't run "make docs-javadoc" but I have a script that directly call the javadoc command. While the comment still exists in the output HTML, it is still a comment, and therefore invisible on the page. True, but the comments are

Re: RFR 8214568: Use {@systemProperty} for definitions of system properties

2018-12-13 Thread Weijun Wang
Hi Roger, I didn't run "make docs-javadoc" but I have a script that directly call the javadoc command. While the comment still exists in the output HTML, it is still a comment, and therefore invisible on the page. Can {@link} be used to link to a URL? I only know about using it to link to cla

Re: RFR 8214568: Use {@systemProperty} for definitions of system properties

2018-12-13 Thread Roger Riggs
Hi, Thanks for converting the package doc. There is XML commented text in the package-info.java that should be removed. It would show up in the javadoc. And there are links that can now use {@link}. It probably worth  % make docs-javadoc and checking the result in images/docs/api. Thanks, R

Re: RFR: 8215281: Use String.isEmpty() where applicable in java.base

2018-12-13 Thread Claes Redestad
On 2018-12-13 14:06, Daniel Fuchs wrote: Looks good Claes! Thanks! I eyeballed the rest of the patch and found nothing wrong - but with a patch this size it would be easy to miss something. Yes, I've gone through it a couple of times now to be sure. Were you able to measure any improveme

Re: RFR: 8215281: Use String.isEmpty() where applicable in java.base

2018-12-13 Thread Daniel Fuchs
Looks good Claes! I eyeballed the rest of the patch and found nothing wrong - but with a patch this size it would be easy to miss something. Were you able to measure any improvement after patching? best regards, -- daniel On 12/12/2018 17:06, Claes Redestad wrote: On 2018-12-12 17:54, Dani

RE: 8215534: [testbug] some jfr test don't check @requires vm.hasJFR

2018-12-13 Thread Lindenmaier, Goetz
Thanks Erik! Pushed. Best regards, Goetz > -Original Message- > From: serviceability-dev On > Behalf Of Erik Gahlin > Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2018 12:34 PM > To: security-dev@openjdk.java.net; serviceability-dev (serviceability- > d...@openjdk.java.net) > Subject: Re: 8215534: [t

Re: 8215534: [testbug] some jfr test don't check @requires vm.hasJFR

2018-12-13 Thread Erik Gahlin
Looks good. Erik Hi, These tests lack @requires vm.hasJFR, thus they are failing on AIX. http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~goetz/wr18/8215334-JFR_requires/01/ Please review. I will push this to jdk12 as it is a testbug if I miss the RDP deadline. Best regards, Goetz.

RE: 8215534: [testbug] some jfr test don't check @requires vm.hasJFR

2018-12-13 Thread Lindenmaier, Goetz
Thanks Sundar! Best regards Goetz > -Original Message- > From: Sundararajan Athijegannathan > > Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2018 9:47 AM > To: Lindenmaier, Goetz > Cc: security-dev@openjdk.java.net; serviceability-dev (serviceability- > d...@openjdk.java.net) > Subject: Re: 8215534:

Re: 8215534: [testbug] some jfr test don't check @requires vm.hasJFR

2018-12-13 Thread Sundararajan Athijegannathan
Looks good. PS. I just checked that there are other tests with the same requires clause. -Sundar On 13/12/18, 1:20 PM, Lindenmaier, Goetz wrote: Hi, These tests lack @requires vm.hasJFR, thus they are failing on AIX. http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~goetz/wr18/8215334-JFR_requires/01/ Please revi