On 07/19/2011 04:00 PM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 07/13/11 04:07 AM, Charles Lee wrote:
On 07/12/2011 07:03 PM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 07/ 5/11 10:10 AM, Charles Lee wrote:
On 04/08/2011 04:47 PM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 04/ 7/11 04:53 PM, Neil Richards wrote:
On Wed, 2011-03-16 at 10:43
On 07/13/11 04:07 AM, Charles Lee wrote:
On 07/12/2011 07:03 PM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 07/ 5/11 10:10 AM, Charles Lee wrote:
On 04/08/2011 04:47 PM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 04/ 7/11 04:53 PM, Neil Richards wrote:
On Wed, 2011-03-16 at 10:43 +, Neil Richards wrote:
On 11 March 2011
Looks fine,
- Michael.
On 18/07/11 13:25, Chris Hegarty wrote:
Michael,
Can you please review this change. It has already been discussed and
agreed, I just rebased it against jdk8 and added a test.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~chegar/7021280/webrev.02/webrev/
Thanks,
-Chris.
On 07/13/11 04
Michael,
Can you please review this change. It has already been discussed and
agreed, I just rebased it against jdk8 and added a test.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~chegar/7021280/webrev.02/webrev/
Thanks,
-Chris.
On 07/13/11 04:07 AM, Charles Lee wrote:
On 07/12/2011 07:03 PM, Chris Hegarty
On 07/12/2011 07:03 PM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 07/ 5/11 10:10 AM, Charles Lee wrote:
On 04/08/2011 04:47 PM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 04/ 7/11 04:53 PM, Neil Richards wrote:
On Wed, 2011-03-16 at 10:43 +, Neil Richards wrote:
On 11 March 2011 14:39, Chris Hegarty
wrote:
As Michael (cc'
On 07/ 5/11 10:10 AM, Charles Lee wrote:
On 04/08/2011 04:47 PM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 04/ 7/11 04:53 PM, Neil Richards wrote:
On Wed, 2011-03-16 at 10:43 +, Neil Richards wrote:
On 11 March 2011 14:39, Chris Hegarty wrote:
As Michael (cc'ed) mentioned in an earlier mail, he is going
On 04/08/2011 04:47 PM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 04/ 7/11 04:53 PM, Neil Richards wrote:
On Wed, 2011-03-16 at 10:43 +, Neil Richards wrote:
On 11 March 2011 14:39, Chris Hegarty wrote:
As Michael (cc'ed) mentioned in an earlier mail, he is going to be
making
some significant changes in t
On Wed, 2011-03-16 at 10:43 +, Neil Richards wrote:
> On 11 March 2011 14:39, Chris Hegarty wrote:
> > As Michael (cc'ed) mentioned in an earlier mail, he is going to be making
> > some significant changes in this area in the next week or two. He will
> > include this change with the other one
On 10 March 2011 03:18, Charles Lee wrote:
> With a quick search in the SocketPermission using "cname =" as search word,
> cname always seems to be lower cases. But hostname does not. It may need
> some rework on the patch.
I think using String.regionMatches() [1] for the comparison (with
'ignore
On 04/ 7/11 04:53 PM, Neil Richards wrote:
On Wed, 2011-03-16 at 10:43 +, Neil Richards wrote:
On 11 March 2011 14:39, Chris Hegarty wrote:
As Michael (cc'ed) mentioned in an earlier mail, he is going to be making
some significant changes in this area in the next week or two. He will
inclu
On 11 March 2011 14:39, Chris Hegarty wrote:
> As Michael (cc'ed) mentioned in an earlier mail, he is going to be making
> some significant changes in this area in the next week or two. He will
> include this change with the other one, so their impact can be considered
> together, if that is ok?
On 10/03/2011 18:33, Neil Richards wrote:
On 10 March 2011 03:18, Charles Lee wrote:
With a quick search in the SocketPermission using "cname =" as search word,
cname always seems to be lower cases. But hostname does not. It may need
some rework on the patch.
I think using String.regionMatche
On 03/11/2011 02:33 AM, Neil Richards wrote:
On 10 March 2011 03:18, Charles Lee wrote:
With a quick search in the SocketPermission using "cname =" as search word,
cname always seems to be lower cases. But hostname does not. It may need
some rework on the patch.
I think using String.regionMatc
On 03/10/2011 12:02 AM, Neil Richards wrote:
On 1 March 2011 09:18, Chris Hegarty wrote:
Michael,
Can you please take a look at this change, CR 7021280: "SocketPermission
trustProxy should accept wildcards".
This patch came from Charles (cc'ed), and I agree with the changes. Can you
please ta
On 1 March 2011 09:18, Chris Hegarty wrote:
> Michael,
>
> Can you please take a look at this change, CR 7021280: "SocketPermission
> trustProxy should accept wildcards".
>
> This patch came from Charles (cc'ed), and I agree with the changes. Can you
> please take a look and give your feedback.
>
Michael,
Can you please take a look at this change, CR 7021280: "SocketPermission
trustProxy should accept wildcards".
This patch came from Charles (cc'ed), and I agree with the changes. Can
you please take a look and give your feedback.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~chegar/7021280/webrev.00/
On 03/01/2011 02:40 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
Charles Lee wrote:
On 02/22/2011 05:43 PM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
Hi Chris,
any news for this issue? And where is CR 7021280?
I think there has been issues with bugs.sun.com recently and it's not
keeping up. However this one is there:
http://bugs.sun
Charles Lee wrote:
On 02/22/2011 05:43 PM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
Hi Chris,
any news for this issue? And where is CR 7021280?
I think there has been issues with bugs.sun.com recently and it's not
keeping up. However this one is there:
http://bugs.sun.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=7021280
-Alan
On 02/22/2011 05:43 PM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
Hi Chris,
any news for this issue? And where is CR 7021280?
On 02/22/11 03:00 AM, Charles Lee wrote:
:
Hi,
A quick patch could be:
diff --git src/share/classes/java/net/SocketPermission.java
src/share/classes/java/net/SocketPermission.java
--- s
Thanks Chris.
On 02/22/2011 05:43 PM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 02/22/11 03:00 AM, Charles Lee wrote:
:
Hi,
A quick patch could be:
diff --git src/share/classes/java/net/SocketPermission.java
src/share/classes/java/net/SocketPermission.java
--- src/share/classes/java/net/SocketPermission.java
On 02/22/11 03:00 AM, Charles Lee wrote:
:
Hi,
A quick patch could be:
diff --git src/share/classes/java/net/SocketPermission.java
src/share/classes/java/net/SocketPermission.java
--- src/share/classes/java/net/SocketPermission.java
+++ src/share/classes/java/net/SocketPermission.java
@@ -817
On 02/21/2011 09:57 PM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 21/02/2011 02:36, Charles Lee wrote:
:
Thanks Chris. You have answer my first question. I have noticed that IP
is important when we try to judge the imply. So it comes my other
Yes, IP is very important. SocketPermission tries to resolve hostna
On 02/21/2011 09:57 PM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 21/02/2011 02:36, Charles Lee wrote:
:
Thanks Chris. You have answer my first question. I have noticed that IP
is important when we try to judge the imply. So it comes my other
Yes, IP is very important. SocketPermission tries to resolve hostna
On 21/02/2011 02:36, Charles Lee wrote:
:
Thanks Chris. You have answer my first question. I have noticed that IP
is important when we try to judge the imply. So it comes my other
Yes, IP is very important. SocketPermission tries to resolve hostnames
to IP before asserting checks.
questio
On 02/19/2011 12:20 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
[ bcc'ing off core-libs-dev and cc'ing (more appropriate) net-dev ]
Hi Charles,
I'm not sure I follow you here. I would not expect '*.java.net' to
imply 'java.net'. I would however expect it to imply sub domains of
java.net, i.e. openjdk.java.net
-C
[ bcc'ing off core-libs-dev and cc'ing (more appropriate) net-dev ]
Hi Charles,
I'm not sure I follow you here. I would not expect '*.java.net' to imply
'java.net'. I would however expect it to imply sub domains of java.net,
i.e. openjdk.java.net
-Chris.
On 17/02/2011 09:19, Charles Lee wro
26 matches
Mail list logo
