Hi,
Could someone please review my code for updating the code in the `java.util`
package to make use of the `instanceof` pattern variable?
Kind regards,
Patrick
-
Commit messages:
- 8267110: Update java.util to use instanceof pattern variable
Changes: https://git.openjdk.java.net
On Tue, 18 May 2021 10:37:21 GMT, Patrick Concannon
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Could someone please review my code for updating the code in the `java.util`
> package to make use of the `instanceof` pattern variable?
>
> Kind regards,
> Patrick
Changes look good.
-
Marked as reviewed by l
On Mon, 17 May 2021 17:51:36 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
> Please review the test changes for [JEP
> 411](https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/411).
>
> With JEP 411 and the default value of `-Djava.security.manager` becoming
> `disallow`, tests calling `System.setSecurityManager()` need
> `-Djava.secu
On Tue, 18 May 2021 10:37:21 GMT, Patrick Concannon
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Could someone please review my code for updating the code in the `java.util`
> package to make use of the `instanceof` pattern variable?
>
> Kind regards,
> Patrick
You may need to coordinate with @DougLea on the changes to
On Tue, 18 May 2021 10:37:21 GMT, Patrick Concannon
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Could someone please review my code for updating the code in the `java.util`
> package to make use of the `instanceof` pattern variable?
>
> Kind regards,
> Patrick
Because we still make jdk11-compatible test-release java.u
On Tue, 18 May 2021 06:31:06 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> Please review this implementation of [JEP
>> 411](https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/411).
>>
>> The code change is divided into 3 commits. Please review them one by one.
>>
>> 1.
>> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/576161d15423f58281e3
On Tue, 18 May 2021 11:12:00 GMT, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
>> Please review the test changes for [JEP
>> 411](https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/411).
>>
>> With JEP 411 and the default value of `-Djava.security.manager` becoming
>> `disallow`, tests calling `System.setSecurityManager()` need
>> `-Dja
On Tue, 18 May 2021 05:48:56 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
> The changes look okay but a bit inconsistent on where -Djava...=allow is
> inserted for tests that already set other system properties or other
> parameters. Not a correctness issue, just looks odd in several places, e.g.
>
> test/jdk/jav
On Tue, 18 May 2021 12:42:08 GMT, Sean Mullan wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/SecurityManager.java line 315:
>>
>>> 313: *
>>> 314: * @since 1.0
>>> 315: * @deprecated The Security Manager is deprecated and subject to
>>> removal in a
>>
>> Javadoc will prefix, in bold, "D
On Tue, 18 May 2021 15:19:21 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> It includes both:
>> 
>
> Thanks for checking, I assumed that was the case so wondering if it
On Mon, 17 May 2021 18:23:41 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
> Please review this implementation of [JEP
> 411](https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/411).
>
> The code change is divided into 3 commits. Please review them one by one.
>
> 1.
> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/576161d15423f58281e384174d28
On Mon, 17 May 2021 18:23:41 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
> Please review this implementation of [JEP
> 411](https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/411).
>
> The code change is divided into 3 commits. Please review them one by one.
>
> 1.
> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/576161d15423f58281e384174d28
On Mon, 17 May 2021 18:23:41 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
> Please review this implementation of [JEP
> 411](https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/411).
>
> The code change is divided into 3 commits. Please review them one by one.
>
> 1.
> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/576161d15423f58281e384174d28
On Tue, 18 May 2021 10:37:21 GMT, Patrick Concannon
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Could someone please review my code for updating the code in the `java.util`
> package to make use of the `instanceof` pattern variable?
>
> Kind regards,
> Patrick
Classes in the i18n area look good.
-
Marked
On Mon, 17 May 2021 18:23:41 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
> Please review this implementation of [JEP
> 411](https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/411).
>
> The code change is divided into 3 commits. Please review them one by one.
>
> 1.
> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/576161d15423f58281e384174d28
On Mon, 17 May 2021 17:51:36 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
> Please review the test changes for [JEP
> 411](https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/411).
>
> With JEP 411 and the default value of `-Djava.security.manager` becoming
> `disallow`, tests calling `System.setSecurityManager()` need
> `-Djava.secu
On Mon, 17 May 2021 18:23:41 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
> Please review this implementation of [JEP
> 411](https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/411).
>
> The code change is divided into 3 commits. Please review them one by one.
>
> 1.
> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/576161d15423f58281e384174d28
On Mon, 17 May 2021 18:23:41 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
> Please review this implementation of [JEP
> 411](https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/411).
>
> The code change is divided into 3 commits. Please review them one by one.
>
> 1.
> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/576161d15423f58281e384174d28
On Tue, 18 May 2021 17:36:55 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> Please review this implementation of [JEP
>> 411](https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/411).
>>
>> The code change is divided into 3 commits. Please review them one by one.
>>
>> 1.
>> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/576161d15423f58281e3
On Tue, 18 May 2021 18:38:52 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/AccessController.java line 877:
>>
>>> 875: @CallerSensitive
>>> 876: public static T doPrivileged(PrivilegedExceptionAction
>>> action,
>>> 877: @Supp
> Please review this implementation of [JEP
> 411](https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/411).
>
> The code change is divided into 3 commits. Please review them one by one.
>
> 1.
> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/576161d15423f58281e384174d28c9f9be7941a1
> The essential change for this JEP, incl
> Please review the test changes for [JEP
> 411](https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/411).
>
> With JEP 411 and the default value of `-Djava.security.manager` becoming
> `disallow`, tests calling `System.setSecurityManager()` need
> `-Djava.security.manager=allow` when launched. This PR covers such
On Mon, 17 May 2021 16:55:35 GMT, Naoto Sato wrote:
> Please review the changes to the subject issue. java.util.Locale class has a
> long-standing issue for those obsolete ISO 639 languages where its
> normalization ends up in the obsolete codes. This change intends to flip the
> normalization
> Please review the changes to the subject issue. java.util.Locale class has a
> long-standing issue for those obsolete ISO 639 languages where its
> normalization ends up in the obsolete codes. This change intends to flip the
> normalization towards the current codes, providing a system propert
On Tue, 18 May 2021 22:22:06 GMT, Joe Wang wrote:
>> Naoto Sato has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Locale's class description modification
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/Locale.java line 462:
>
>> 460: * backwar
On Tue, 18 May 2021 23:39:37 GMT, Naoto Sato wrote:
>> Please review the changes to the subject issue. java.util.Locale class has a
>> long-standing issue for those obsolete ISO 639 languages where its
>> normalization ends up in the obsolete codes. This change intends to flip the
>> normaliza
On Tue, 18 May 2021 23:35:12 GMT, Naoto Sato wrote:
>> test/jdk/java/util/Locale/LocaleTest.java line 683:
>>
>>> 681: * @bug 4052404 4778440 8263202
>>> 682: */
>>> 683: public void TestChangedISO639Codes() {
>>
>> Could probably be simplified with a DataProvider.
>
> That would
27 matches
Mail list logo
