> Please review these JNDI changes.
> Bug detail: http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=7072353
> webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mduigou/7072353/0/webrev/
Thanks for your effort to make JNDI free of compile-warning. The work is
hard, I appreciate it.
1. I noticed the copyright d
Xuelei Fan wrote:
:
1. I noticed the copyright date of a few files are unchanged, please
update them before you push the changes.
This has come up a few times but I don't think it is strictly required.
Kelly or one of the release engineers run a script over the forest
periodically to fix up
On Aug 3, 2011, at 12:11 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
> Xuelei Fan wrote:
>> :
>> 1. I noticed the copyright date of a few files are unchanged, please
>> update them before you push the changes.
>>
> This has come up a few times but I don't think it is strictly required. Kelly
> or one of the rel
Thanks for reviewing! See my responses inline.
I'll wait on sending another webrev until I've received the rest of your
comments.
-Sasha
On 8/2/2011 2:19 AM, Xuelei Fan wrote:
Please review these JNDI changes.
Bug detail: http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=7072353
webrev: htt
Thanks for reviewing! Please see my responses inline.
I'll wait on sending another webrev until I've received the rest of your
comments.
-Sasha
On 8/2/2011 2:19 AM, Xuelei Fan wrote:
Please review these JNDI changes.
Bug detail: http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=7072353
webr
com/sun/jndi/toolkit/dir/SearchFilter.java
451 for (NamingEnumeration ve = attr.getAll();
452 ve.hasMore();
453) {
The update is OK. But the coding style looks uncomfortable. Would you
mind change it to use for-each style?
. javax/naming/directory/BasicAtt
On 17:11 Tue 02 Aug , Alan Bateman wrote:
> Xuelei Fan wrote:
> > :
> > 1. I noticed the copyright date of a few files are unchanged, please
> > update them before you push the changes.
> >
> This has come up a few times but I don't think it is strictly required.
> Kelly or one of the relea
Alexandre Boulgakov said the following on 08/03/11 04:44:
On 8/2/2011 2:19 AM, Xuelei Fan wrote:
3017 Vector temp = (Vector)extractURLs(res.errorMessage);
You may not need the conversion any more, the return value of
extractURLs() has been updated to
2564 private static Vector extr
Please see my responses inline.
Thanks!
-Sasha
On 8/2/2011 9:13 PM, Xuelei Fan wrote:
. com/sun/jndi/toolkit/dir/SearchFilter.java
451 for (NamingEnumeration ve = attr.getAll();
452 ve.hasMore();
453) {
The update is OK. But the coding style looks un
Users of Iterable expect to call Iterable.iterator() multiple times,
receiving a fresh iterator pointing to the beginning of the Iterable
each time. This would not be possible to do with an Enumeration wrapper
since Enumerations are read-once.
I don't know if this is a strong enough reason not
On 8/4/2011 2:03 AM, Alexandre Boulgakov wrote:
> Please see my responses inline.
>
> Thanks!
> -Sasha
>
> On 8/2/2011 9:13 PM, Xuelei Fan wrote:
>> . com/sun/jndi/toolkit/dir/SearchFilter.java
>> 451 for (NamingEnumeration ve = attr.getAll();
>> 452 ve.hasMore();
>> 4
On Wed, 2011-08-03 at 11:03 -0700, Alexandre Boulgakov wrote:
> Please see my responses inline.
>
> Thanks!
> -Sasha
>
> On 8/2/2011 9:13 PM, Xuelei Fan wrote:
> > . com/sun/jndi/toolkit/dir/SearchFilter.java
> > 451 for (NamingEnumeration ve = attr.getAll();
> > 452 ve.
One better way to handle this in Java 8 would be to have a utility method
that takes a Supplier> SAM argument (with a no-arg method
that returns an Enumeration) and returns an Iterable that gets a new
Enumeration from the supplier each time iterator() is called. It could then
be used with method re
13 matches
Mail list logo
