The code change looks fine.
If it were me, I won't do any clean up.
--Max
On 5/14/2015 11:14 PM, Vincent Ryan wrote:
That makes more sense. I’ve updated the webrev in place.
On 14 May 2015, at 15:29, Weijun Wang wrote:
Hi Vinnie
Is there any reason why they cannot be simply created in th
> On 20 May 2015, at 10:59, Weijun Wang wrote:
>
> The code change looks fine.
Thanks.
>
> If it were me, I won't do any clean up.
Previously there were some problems with cleanup on Windows. If that cleanup
code is no longer necessary I’ll remove it.
>
> --Max
>
> On 5/14/2015 11:14 PM, V
Hi!
The backport required some manual editing, thus I'm asking for a review too.
Would you please review and approve backporting this fix?
BUGURL: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8077102
WEBREV: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~igerasim/8077102/00/webrev/
The fix was tested on all available
Hi,
1) There are two types of extensions:
a) That modify the directly how the engine works like
[max_fragment_length,heartbeat,encrypt_then_mac,extended_master_secret,SessionTicket,...]
b) That provide information (modify the network protocol) like
[npn,alpn,status_request,...]
2) Some of the exti
Hi Artem,
Is there a reason this needs to be a separate test? It seems like it
would be better to fold it into the existing GenerationTests and
ValidationTests in the test/javax/xml/crypto/dsig directory, so you
could reuse common code.
Thanks,
Sean
On 05/12/2015 11:32 AM, Artem Smotrakov w
On 05/19/2015 10:20 PM, Oracle wrote:
The code change looks fine.
Some tiny suggestions on styles:
Is it possible to move the definition of Key before key is assigned?
Sure. I will move it to the top of the class.
Some left braces ("{") are on new lines, looks inconsistent with others.
Ok
Hi Sean,
Yes, at first, I thought about updating the existing tests in
test/javax/xml/crypto/dsig directory. But then I noticed that both
GenerationTests and ValidationTests has ~30 test cases. And new
Detached.java test contains >30 test cases. If one of test cases fails,
JTREG will show tha
Hi,
Please review DTLS implementation [JEP-219/JDK-8043758]:
webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~xuelei/8043758/webrev.latest/
JBS: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8043758
I would greatly appreciate it if you could send me feedback on or before
May 28, 2015.
Thanks & Regards,
Xuelei Fa
Sean,
Could you please review this change? The changes are mostly the same as
the prototype in Jake, but I have to make some modification due to the
difference in ServiceLoader lookup in OpenJDK (corresponding
META-INF/services/java.security.Provider files in each module) and the
related make
> On May 20, 2015, at 9:21 PM, Valerie Peng wrote:
>
> Sean,
>
> Could you please review this change? The changes are mostly the same as the
> prototype in Jake, but I have to make some modification due to the difference
> in ServiceLoader lookup in OpenJDK (corresponding
> META-INF/services
Code change is fine.
Thanks
Max
On 5/21/2015 12:58 AM, Ivan Gerasimov wrote:
Hi!
The backport required some manual editing, thus I'm asking for a review
too.
Would you please review and approve backporting this fix?
BUGURL: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8077102
WEBREV: http://cr.op
11 matches
Mail list logo
