Update JAX-WS RI integration to 2.2.9-b130918.1732 - JDK-8025054

[Seán Coffey]

On 01/10/2013 10:29, Chris Hegarty wrote:
> On 10/01/2013 10:09 AM, Seán Coffey wrote:
>> Miran,
>>
>> I'm assuming that all these changes were reviewed when integrated to the
>> upstream JAX-WS project. I confirm that my changes from 8016271 are
>> present and look fine. I'm not an OpenJDK reviewer though so you'll need
>> someone else as reviewer.
>
> From a quick skim, I don't see anything objectionable.
>
> I see a new test has been added to the jdk repo. Since it defines a 
> TestService, is it a bit of a land grab on javax/xml/ws? Or can other 
> jaxws test be put in javax/xml/ws without interference?
Good point. Hopefully Miran can move them to a sub-directory before 
pushing. Maybe something like : test/javax/xml/ws/clientJarTest/

regards,
Sean.
>
> -Chris.
>
>>
>> regards,
>> Sean.
>>
>> On 26/09/2013 17:14, Miroslav Kos wrote:
>>> Hi Sean,
>>> anything new about this?
>>>
>>> I fixed the copyright/indentation problems (the only change), so the
>>> updated jaxws-webrev is located here:
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mkos/8025054/webrev-jaxws.01/
>>>
>>> Since the timestamp (version number) changed too, I updated also the
>>> JIRA issue:
>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8025054
>>>
>>> It would be good to push it soon.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Miran
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/23/13 5:38 PM, Alan Bateman wrote:
>>>> On 23/09/2013 02:19, Miroslav Kos wrote:
>>>>> Hi everybody,
>>>>>
>>>>> There is another update syncing JAX-WS sources in jdk8/tl/jaxws to
>>>>> most recent development version.
>>>>>
>>>>> As usually, it is quite big changeset (6k+ LOC changed) and includes
>>>>> several bug fixes, for details see the issue description:
>>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8025054
>>>>>
>>>>> Please, see weberevs here:
>>>>> jaxws: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mkos/8025054/webrev.00
>>>>> jdk/test: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mkos/8025054/webrev-jdk.00/
>>>> Just a passing comment (not a code review) on the copyright headers
>>>> of the new source files. I assume they must have been copied from
>>>> another file as they say 1997.  You might want to also check for tabs
>>>> too (although jcheck will catch those) because it looks like some of
>>>> the javadoc comments and annotations have inconsistent indentation.
>>>>
>>>> -Alan
>>>
>>