Looks good to me.
> On 17 Jun 2019, at 18:00, Chris Hegarty wrote:
>
> I moved the null check to after the signal to the downstream
> subscriber.
>
> Updated webrev:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~chegar/8225583/webrev.01/
>
> -Chris.
Am 18.06.19 um 08:07 schrieb Alan Bateman:
> On 02/05/2019 09:25, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> On 02/05/2019 08:44, Andre Naujoks wrote:
>>> Hello all.
>>>
>>> I just noticed, that the fix from Bug JDK-8210493 was reverted for Java
>>> 12. With a new bug JDK-8215294 taking over the issue.
>> Yes, it caus
On 18/06/2019 13:53, Andre Naujoks wrote:
:
We tried the old test-code with the Java Version from Debian
experimental and it does indeed work now on linux.
Thanks for confirming.
Java on Windows still throws an Exception when trying to bind like this.
This shouldn't be a big surprise. It's ve
Am 18.06.19 um 15:20 schrieb Alan Bateman:
> On 18/06/2019 13:53, Andre Naujoks wrote:
>> :
>> We tried the old test-code with the Java Version from Debian
>> experimental and it does indeed work now on linux.
> Thanks for confirming.
>
>>
>> Java on Windows still throws an Exception when trying t
Hi Chris,
Looks good to me.
best regards,
-- daniel
On 17/06/2019 18:00, Chris Hegarty wrote:
I moved the null check to after the signal to the downstream
subscriber.
Updated webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~chegar/8225583/webrev.01/
-Chris.
[ adding net-dev ]
Pavel,
> On 18 Jun 2019, at 14:22, Pavel Rappo wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Please review the following change:
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~prappo/8226303/webrev.00
This looks good. Just a few minor comments:
1) Please add the bug no. and a brief summary, to the test tags.
Hi Chris,
Thanks for adding net-dev. I should've posted there in the first place, but
something went wrong. As for your comments:
1) I will add this before pushing the change:
* @summary Verifies that some of the standard BodyPublishers relay exception
* rather than throw it
Pavel,
> On 18 Jun 2019, at 17:56, Pavel Rappo wrote:
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> Thanks for adding net-dev. I should've posted there in the first place, but
> something went wrong. As for your comments:
>
> 1) I will add this before pushing the change:
>
>* @summary Verifies that some of the stand
Hi Pavel,
Mostly looks good to me.
One remark about the test:
107 CompletableFuture future() {
108 return f.copy();
109 }
I had to read the javadoc to convince myself that this was OK ;-)
If the existing tests all pass reliably you have my review.
best regards,
