On 26 Aug 2014, at 15:06, Alan Bateman wrote:
> On 26/08/2014 15:01, Michael McMahon wrote:
>> Could I get the following small change reviewed please?
>>
>> One file was missed from my earlier change to SimpleSSLContext
>>
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~michaelm/8056065/webrev.1/
> This looks o
On 26/08/14 15:06, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 26/08/2014 15:01, Michael McMahon wrote:
Could I get the following small change reviewed please?
One file was missed from my earlier change to SimpleSSLContext
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~michaelm/8056065/webrev.1/
This looks okay to me, I assume that
On 26/08/2014 15:01, Michael McMahon wrote:
Could I get the following small change reviewed please?
One file was missed from my earlier change to SimpleSSLContext
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~michaelm/8056065/webrev.1/
This looks okay to me, I assume that all the :jdk_net tests are passing now.
Could I get the following small change reviewed please?
One file was missed from my earlier change to SimpleSSLContext
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~michaelm/8056065/webrev.1/
Thanks,
Michael.
On 26/08/14 09:05, Wang Weijun wrote:
On Aug 26, 2014, at 15:57, Michael McMahon wrote:
Thanks for doing this Max. The syntax looks fine.
Just one question. Do you think it is better to specify each socket option
literally in the tool
as you have done (ie. the only supported NetworkPermission
On Aug 26, 2014, at 15:57, Michael McMahon wrote:
> Thanks for doing this Max. The syntax looks fine.
> Just one question. Do you think it is better to specify each socket option
> literally in the tool
> as you have done (ie. the only supported NetworkPermission
> is SO_FLOW_SLA with this chan
Thanks for doing this Max. The syntax looks fine.
Just one question. Do you think it is better to specify each socket
option literally in the tool
as you have done (ie. the only supported NetworkPermission
is SO_FLOW_SLA with this change) or allow users to type in the option
name as free-form t
