On 8.10.2015 13:49, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
Please, review the following change
Issue : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-7199353
Round 2 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jbachorik/7199353/webrev.01
Changes against round 1:
* @javax.management.ConstructorProperties (was
@javax.ma
Hi Jaroslav,
This looks good to me. I wonder if @bug 7199353 should be added
to some of the existing tests too, given that you modified them
to use the new annotation.
best regards,
-- daniel
On 14/10/15 11:36, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
On 8.10.2015 13:49, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
Please, rev
On 14.10.2015 15:24, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 14/10/2015 10:34, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
Round 2 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jbachorik/7199353/webrev.01
Changes against round 1:
* @javax.management.ConstructorProperties (was
@javax.management.annotation.ConstructorProperties)
* diff i
On 14/10/2015 14:38, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
Eg. "When only @java.beans.ConstructorProperties is used then rule 2
is not applicable to subset Profiles of Java SE that do not include
the java.beans package." ?
Adding "only" will would work too. You might consider "is present"
rather than "i
> On Oct 14, 2015, at 7:25 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
>
>> Hm, shouldn't we name the new annotation differently then?
>> @ConstructorMapping ? It is not mandatory that we keep the actual name - we
>> are changing the package anyway ...
> This may have been discussed previously, Mandy might know.
> On Oct 14, 2015, at 2:36 AM, Jaroslav Bachorik
> wrote:
>
> On 8.10.2015 13:49, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
>> Please, review the following change
>>
>> Issue : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-7199353
>
> Round 2 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jbachorik/7199353/webrev.01
That lo
On 14.10.2015 16:52, Mandy Chung wrote:
On Oct 14, 2015, at 7:25 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
Hm, shouldn't we name the new annotation differently then? @ConstructorMapping
? It is not mandatory that we keep the actual name - we are changing the
package anyway ...
This may have been discussed
Looks good, but cant-stop-nitpicking Martin feels compelled to point out
the typo here:
71 // his instance will be used to perform the GC.run_finalization test
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 11:47 PM, Jaroslav Bachorik <
jaroslav.bacho...@oracle.com> wrote:
> On 13.10.2015 20:12, Martin Buchhol
On 15.10.2015 00:24, Martin Buchholz wrote:
Looks good, but cant-stop-nitpicking Martin feels compelled to point out
the typo here:
71 // his instance will be used to perform the GC.run_finalization test
Hopefully, it is not necessary to repost the updated webrev. Or is it?
-JB-
O
