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

[Miroslav Kos]

Hi Sean,
yes, all the changes are going throuhg a review on our side before they 
are pushed into upstream projects.

When we integrated in the past into jdk, reviewers were Sean Mullan, 
Sami Koivu, Alan Bateman and Alexander Fomin. Could anybody from them 
look into it? If you had any hint who could we ask, let me know.

Thanks
Miran


On 10/1/13 11:09 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.
>
> 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
>>
>