On 08/20/2014 02:47 PM, Michael McMahon wrote:
This still looks fine to me Peter.
Thanks
Michael
Hi Michael,
Do I need another reviewer to push this to jdk9-dev ? I don't have a
clear picture about how many reviewers are needed for what parts of JDK
code.
Regards, Peter
On 19/08/14 11
This still looks fine to me Peter.
Thanks
Michael
On 19/08/14 11:51, Peter Levart wrote:
Hi Michael,
I have re-based the patch to the new jdk9 source layout. Nothing
changes from the webrev.03 except paths:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~plevart/jdk9-dev/InetAddress.Cache/webrev.04/
Regards,
Hi Michael,
I have re-based the patch to the new jdk9 source layout. Nothing changes
from the webrev.03 except paths:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~plevart/jdk9-dev/InetAddress.Cache/webrev.04/
Regards, Peter
On 07/09/2014 01:52 PM, Peter Levart wrote:
Hi Michael,
Thanks for testing. I have
On 07/09/2014 01:54 PM, Claes Redestad wrote:
I see you're still expanding scope from private to package:
-private static InetAddress[] getAddressesFromNameService(String
host, InetAddress reqAddr)
+static InetAddress[] getAddressesFromNameService(String host,
InetAddress reqAddr)
/C
Hi Michael,
Thanks for testing. I have prepared another webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~plevart/jdk9-dev/InetAddress.Cache/webrev.03/
It only cleans up two comments suggested by Bernd (removed superfluous
phrase "with 0" from statements about comparing time instants). So do
you think this
On 03/07/2014 11:12, Peter Levart wrote:
I have filed a RFE that is more suitable for this change:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8049228
So, is it strictly necessary to fix JDK-7186258 alone before applying
the change for JDK-8049228 although it would supersede it?
We can close
On 07/01/2014 10:04 PM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
I haven't looked at the patch, but generally ... all uses of
currentTimeMillis to measure elapsed time should be migrated to use
difference of two nanoTime values, and such a change should be done
independently of other changes.
I have filed a RFE
