On Sat, 19 Nov 2022 04:31:13 GMT, pandaapo wrote:
>> The cache named `signerToCodeSource` in `JarVerifier` is never used now.
>
> pandaapo has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
> commit since the last revision:
>
> Modify as reviews.
I just filed https://bugs.openjdk
On Sat, 19 Nov 2022 23:00:44 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
> since this bug description is about a coding error but you fix is about
> cleanup, how about I file another bug and you use it in the title?
OK. Thanks.
> I am trying to add a noreg-cleanup label to the bug and it does not apply to
> the
On Sat, 19 Nov 2022 04:31:13 GMT, pandaapo wrote:
>> The cache named `signerToCodeSource` in `JarVerifier` is never used now.
>
> pandaapo has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
> commit since the last revision:
>
> Modify as reviews.
BTW, since this bug description i
On Sat, 19 Nov 2022 04:31:13 GMT, pandaapo wrote:
>> The cache named `signerToCodeSource` in `JarVerifier` is never used now.
>
> pandaapo has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
> commit since the last revision:
>
> Modify as reviews.
Great to see more lines removed.
> The cache named `signerToCodeSource` in `JarVerifier` is never used now.
pandaapo has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit
since the last revision:
Modify as reviews.
-
Changes:
- all: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/11072/files
- new: https://
On Fri, 18 Nov 2022 15:38:47 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> pandaapo 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 three additional commits
>> sin
> The cache named `signerToCodeSource` in `JarVerifier` is never used now.
pandaapo has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit
since the last revision:
Modify as reviews.
-
Changes:
- all: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/11072/files
- new: https://
On Fri, 18 Nov 2022 03:57:32 GMT, pandaapo wrote:
>> The cache named `signerToCodeSource` in `JarVerifier` is never used now.
>
> pandaapo 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
On Fri, 18 Nov 2022 03:57:32 GMT, pandaapo wrote:
>> The cache named `signerToCodeSource` in `JarVerifier` is never used now.
>
> pandaapo 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
On Fri, 18 Nov 2022 03:57:32 GMT, pandaapo wrote:
>> The cache named `signerToCodeSource` in `JarVerifier` is never used now.
>
> pandaapo 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
> The cache named `signerToCodeSource` in `JarVerifier` is never used now.
pandaapo 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 three additional com
On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 19:50:32 GMT, Sean Mullan wrote:
> > Because `JarVerifier#setEagerValidation` will be removed, the field
> > `eagerValidation` will always be false.
> > There are some codes using this field:
> > https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/master/src/java.base/share/classes/java/uti
On Wed, 16 Nov 2022 07:41:45 GMT, pandaapo wrote:
> Because `JarVerifier#setEagerValidation` will be removed, the field
> `eagerValidation` will always be false.
>
> There are some codes using this field:
> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/master/src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/jar/Ja
On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 18:41:41 GMT, Sean Mullan wrote:
> Yes. I believe the `setEagerValidation` method can also be removed and all
> code that calls it.
OK, I will remove it and all methods that calls it:
