On Wed, 13 Oct 2021 07:35:16 GMT, Andrey Turbanov wrote:
>> 8274893: Update java.desktop classes to use try-with-resources
>
> Andrey Turbanov has updated the pull request incrementally with two
> additional commits since the last revision:
>
> - 8274893: Update java.desktop classes to use try
On Wed, 17 Nov 2021 19:25:15 GMT, Andrey Turbanov wrote:
>> Non-static classes hold a link to their parent classes, which in many cases
>> can be avoided.
>> I updated only private and package-private classes. Didn't touch
>> public/protected to not break external code.
>> Similar cleanup in ja
> Non-static classes hold a link to their parent classes, which in many cases
> can be avoided.
> I updated only private and package-private classes. Didn't touch
> public/protected to not break external code.
> Similar cleanup in java.base -
> [JDK-8261880](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/
On Wed, 17 Nov 2021 14:32:16 GMT, Alexey Ivanov wrote:
>> Andrey Turbanov has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> [PATCH] Change nested classes in java.desktop to static nested classes
>> fix review comments
>
> src/java.deskto
On Wed, 17 Nov 2021 19:21:49 GMT, Andrey Turbanov wrote:
>> Non-static classes hold a link to their parent classes, which in many cases
>> can be avoided.
>> I updated only private and package-private classes. Didn't touch
>> public/protected to not break external code.
>> Similar cleanup in ja
> Non-static classes hold a link to their parent classes, which in many cases
> can be avoided.
> I updated only private and package-private classes. Didn't touch
> public/protected to not break external code.
> Similar cleanup in java.base -
> [JDK-8261880](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/
On Thu, 14 Oct 2021 07:47:33 GMT, Andrey Turbanov wrote:
> Non-static classes hold a link to their parent classes, which in many cases
> can be avoided.
> I updated only private and package-private classes. Didn't touch
> public/protected to not break external code.
> Similar cleanup in java.ba
On 16/11/2021 19:02, Pushkar N Kulkarni wrote:
Hi Alan,
Thanks. I appreciate your response.
Yes, I think GB13080 must continue to be GB13080-2000 for now. I was initially hoping to
add a new character set with the name GB13080-2005. But I guess your suggestion of
internally mapping one of the
