On Jul 7, 2014, at 1:07 PM, Peter Levart wrote:
> Hi Pavel, Alan and Paul,
>
> Thanks for reviewing. I accepted the suggestions from Pavel and Paul and
> created webrev.02:
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~plevart/jdk9-dev/URL.factory/webrev.02/
>
> Is this good to go into jdk9-dev?
>
Looks
On 07/07/2014 12:07, Peter Levart wrote:
Hi Pavel, Alan and Paul,
Thanks for reviewing. I accepted the suggestions from Pavel and Paul
and created webrev.02:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~plevart/jdk9-dev/URL.factory/webrev.02/
Is this good to go into jdk9-dev?
The comments looks okay to me (a
Peter,
Thanks for the explanation. No. I think your change is good. I've run
tests here locally
and I'm happy with it overall.
Michael
On 07/07/14 14:10, Peter Levart wrote:
On 07/07/2014 12:59 PM, Michael McMahon wrote:
Hi Peter,
Is it necessary to remove the cache entry in the local host
On 07/07/2014 12:59 PM, Michael McMahon wrote:
Hi Peter,
Is it necessary to remove the cache entry in the local host case
(L1226) ?
It seems redundant to cache it here, and also explicitly in the
CachedLocalHost object
Michael
Hi Michael,
Thanks for looking into this.
getLocalHost() seem
Hi Pavel, Alan and Paul,
Thanks for reviewing. I accepted the suggestions from Pavel and Paul and
created webrev.02:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~plevart/jdk9-dev/URL.factory/webrev.02/
Is this good to go into jdk9-dev?
Regards, Peter
On 07/04/2014 04:54 PM, Paul Sandoz wrote:
On Jul 3, 20
Hi Peter,
Is it necessary to remove the cache entry in the local host case (L1226) ?
It seems redundant to cache it here, and also explicitly in the
CachedLocalHost object
Michael
On 02/07/14 12:56, Peter Levart wrote:
Hi,
I updated the webrev with first two suggestions from Bernd (expireTi
