Looks good to me (emcmanus) too.
Éamonn
2016-01-06 7:04 GMT-08:00 Alan Bateman :
>
>
> On 06/01/2016 11:00, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
>
>> On 5.1.2016 16:47, Eamonn McManus wrote:
>>
>>> OK. In that case I would suggest removing the checkVersion variable
>>> since it is now always true, along wit
On 06/01/2016 11:00, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
On 5.1.2016 16:47, Eamonn McManus wrote:
OK. In that case I would suggest removing the checkVersion variable
since it is now always true, along with the logic from
ImplVersionCommand for when it is false.
Done. Also updated the test summary wordi
On 5.1.2016 16:47, Eamonn McManus wrote:
OK. In that case I would suggest removing the checkVersion variable
since it is now always true, along with the logic from
ImplVersionCommand for when it is false.
Done. Also updated the test summary wording as suggested by Alan:
http://cr.openjdk.java.n
OK. In that case I would suggest removing the checkVersion variable since
it is now always true, along with the logic from ImplVersionCommand for
when it is false.
Éamonn
2016-01-05 5:52 GMT-08:00 Jaroslav Bachorik :
> On 4.1.2016 21:26, Eamonn McManus wrote:
>
>> I think this test should either
On 5.1.2016 15:00, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 05/01/2016 13:52, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
On 4.1.2016 21:26, Eamonn McManus wrote:
I think this test should either be deleted or reduced to a simple check
that the MBeanServerDelegate's ImplementationVersion attribute is equal
to System.getProperty("
On 05/01/2016 13:52, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
On 4.1.2016 21:26, Eamonn McManus wrote:
I think this test should either be deleted or reduced to a simple check
that the MBeanServerDelegate's ImplementationVersion attribute is equal
to System.getProperty("java.runtime.version"). The whole busine
On 4.1.2016 21:26, Eamonn McManus wrote:
I think this test should either be deleted or reduced to a simple check
that the MBeanServerDelegate's ImplementationVersion attribute is equal
to System.getProperty("java.runtime.version"). The whole business of
starting up a separate process and checking
I think this test should either be deleted or reduced to a simple check
that the MBeanServerDelegate's ImplementationVersion attribute is equal to
System.getProperty("java.runtime.version"). The whole business of starting
up a separate process and checking things with security managers and so on
is
On 04/01/2016 15:05, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
:
Not sure. With this change in place the test will not even try to
detect the situation when JMX is not bundled with JDK.
There is another test
(jdk/test/javax/management/remote/mandatory/version/ImplVersionTest.java)
with the same wording in
On 4.1.2016 12:09, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 04/01/2016 10:20, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
Please, review the following simple change
Issue : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8143047
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jbachorik/8143047/webrev.00
The patch removes the special path taken wh
On 04/01/2016 10:20, Jaroslav Bachorik wrote:
Please, review the following simple change
Issue : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8143047
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jbachorik/8143047/webrev.00
The patch removes the special path taken when jmxrmi.jar is present on
the bootcla
Please, review the following simple change
Issue : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8143047
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jbachorik/8143047/webrev.00
The patch removes the special path taken when jmxrmi.jar is present on
the bootclasspath. There are two reasons for this cleanup:
12 matches
Mail list logo
