From aph at redhat.com Wed Jan 8 10:06:28 2014 From: aph at redhat.com (Andrew Haley) Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2014 18:06:28 +0000 Subject: Java SE 8 (JSR 337) Public Review Specification: DRAFT In-Reply-To: <20131023134536.973737@eggemoggin.niobe.net> References: <20131023134536.973737@eggemoggin.niobe.net> Message-ID: <52CD93A4.2020008@redhat.com> On 10/23/2013 09:45 PM, mark.reinhold at oracle.com wrote: > I'd like to submit this to the JCP PMO for the formal Public Review > period next week. Please let me know by 22:00 UTC next Wednesday, > 30 October, of any changes you'd like me to make before I submit it, > or if you think that further discussion is required. I think this is ready to go forward. Andrew. From spoole at linux.vnet.ibm.com Thu Jan 9 08:45:47 2014 From: spoole at linux.vnet.ibm.com (Steve Poole) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 16:45:47 +0000 Subject: Java SE 8 (JSR 337) Proposed Final Draft Specification: DRAFT Message-ID: hi Mark - please go ahead and submit this draft to JCP PMO asis. Thanks From mark.reinhold at oracle.com Wed Jan 15 08:33:06 2014 From: mark.reinhold at oracle.com (mark.reinhold at oracle.com) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 08:33:06 -0800 Subject: Java SE 8 PFD Specification posted to jcp.org Message-ID: <20140115083306.837725@eggemoggin.niobe.net> FYI: https://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=337 For reference, the submitted version is also available here: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mr/se/8/java-se-8-pfd-spec/ The only differences between the draft and submitted versions are that I fixed a couple of typographical errors and corrected some hyperlinks. - Mark From mark.reinhold at oracle.com Thu Jan 16 13:35:13 2014 From: mark.reinhold at oracle.com (mark.reinhold at oracle.com) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 13:35:13 -0800 Subject: Java SE 8 (JSR 337) Final Release Specification, RI, and TCK: DRAFT Message-ID: <20140116133513.77552@eggemoggin.niobe.net> The draft Final Release Specification is available here: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mr/se/8/java-se-8-fr-spec-01/ Changes in this version: - Annex 1, the detailed API specification-change summary, and Annex 2, the annotated API specification showing the exact differences relative to Java SE 7, have been updated to include the most recent small enhancements, clarifications, and bug fixes as well as the latest API changes from the Component JSR Specifications. - Annex 2, the annotated API specification, is now more compact. The version of Annex 2 in the Proposed Final Draft contained many redundant entries due to a bug in the process which generated it. - Annex 3, which contains draft versions of The Java Language Specification and The Java Virtual Machine Specification, has been updated to include the latest changes from Component JSR Specifications (i.e., Lambda Expressions (JSR 335) and Annotations on Java Types (JSR 308)). The draft Reference Implementation is available here: http://jdk8.java.net/java-se-8-ri/ The official RI is licensed under the GPL, but equivalent builds are also provided under the Oracle Binary Code License for those who prefer that. The draft TCK is available only to EG members. You should shortly receive a private message containing instructions on how to obtain the TCK and its documentation. A few notes on versions: - The draft RI is based upon build 121 of the OpenJDK JDK 8 Project, and we have run the draft TCK against that build. - The information in Annexes 1 and 2 in this draft Specification, by contrast, is based upon JDK 8 build 123, and so it is closer to the actual Final Release. - The final RI will most likely be based upon JDK 8 build 124, due in the next few days. I'd like to submit these materials to the JCP PMO for the Final Approval Ballot by the end of the month. Please let me know by 22:00 UTC on Thursday, 30 January, of any changes you'd like me to make before I submit it, or if you think that further discussion is required. Thanks, - Mark From aph at redhat.com Wed Jan 22 05:04:30 2014 From: aph at redhat.com (Andrew Haley) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 13:04:30 +0000 Subject: Java SE 8 (JSR 337) Final Release Specification, RI, and TCK: DRAFT In-Reply-To: <20140116133513.77552@eggemoggin.niobe.net> References: <20140116133513.77552@eggemoggin.niobe.net> Message-ID: <52DFC1DE.5020909@redhat.com> On 01/16/2014 09:35 PM, mark.reinhold at oracle.com wrote: > I'd like to submit these materials to the JCP PMO for the Final > Approval Ballot by the end of the month. Please let me know by > 22:00 UTC on Thursday, 30 January, of any changes you'd like me to > make before I submit it, or if you think that further discussion > is required. There are some JCK failures in the draft RI. compiler tests: all ok devtools tests: all ok runtime tests: 68928 passed, 68 failures, 0 errors Failures: api/org_ietf/jgss/GSSContext/* (14 total): all caused by missing support for AES256, so I'd say it's expected api/java_util/Base64/Decoder/* (20 total): caused by missing methods in the package java.util.base64 api/signaturetest/sigtest.basic.html#basic[java] (1 total): dtto caused by missing methods in the package java.util.base64 many (almost all) other failures: +-infinity returned instead of NaN in Double/double computations Andrew. From mark.reinhold at oracle.com Wed Jan 22 16:21:42 2014 From: mark.reinhold at oracle.com (mark.reinhold at oracle.com) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 16:21:42 -0800 Subject: Java SE 8 (JSR 337) Final Release Specification, RI, and TCK: DRAFT In-Reply-To: <52DFC1DE.5020909@redhat.com> References: <20140116133513.77552@eggemoggin.niobe.net>, <52DFC1DE.5020909@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20140122162142.163659@eggemoggin.niobe.net> 2014/1/21 21:04 -0800, Andrew Haley : > There are some JCK failures in the draft RI. > > compiler tests: all ok > devtools tests: all ok > runtime tests: 68928 passed, 68 failures, 0 errors > > Failures: > api/org_ietf/jgss/GSSContext/* (14 total): > all caused by missing support for AES256, so I'd say it's expected Hrm, maybe you expect them but they're not known failures. Could you please send me (privately) the relevant .jtr file and also a description of the system on which you're running the JCK (OS, kernel version, hardware, etc.)? I'll forward that information on to the JCK team for analysis. > api/java_util/Base64/Decoder/* (20 total): > caused by missing methods in the package java.util.base64 > > api/signaturetest/sigtest.basic.html#basic[java] (1 total): > dtto caused by missing methods in the package java.util.base64 > > many (almost all) other failures: > +-infinity returned instead of NaN in Double/double computations We think these are known failures, but again if you could send along the relevant .jtr files then we can make sure. Thanks, - Mark From aph at redhat.com Thu Jan 23 00:54:05 2014 From: aph at redhat.com (Andrew Haley) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 08:54:05 +0000 Subject: Java SE 8 (JSR 337) Final Release Specification, RI, and TCK: DRAFT In-Reply-To: <20140122162142.163659@eggemoggin.niobe.net> References: <20140116133513.77552@eggemoggin.niobe.net>, <52DFC1DE.5020909@redhat.com> <20140122162142.163659@eggemoggin.niobe.net> Message-ID: <52E0D8AD.3010104@redhat.com> On 01/23/2014 12:21 AM, mark.reinhold at oracle.com wrote: > 2014/1/21 21:04 -0800, Andrew Haley : >> There are some JCK failures in the draft RI. >> >> compiler tests: all ok >> devtools tests: all ok >> runtime tests: 68928 passed, 68 failures, 0 errors >> >> Failures: >> api/org_ietf/jgss/GSSContext/* (14 total): >> all caused by missing support for AES256, so I'd say it's expected > > Hrm, maybe you expect them but they're not known failures. Could you > please send me (privately) the relevant .jtr file and also a description > of the system on which you're running the JCK (OS, kernel version, > hardware, etc.)? I'll forward that information on to the JCK team for > analysis. OK. >> api/java_util/Base64/Decoder/* (20 total): >> caused by missing methods in the package java.util.base64 >> >> api/signaturetest/sigtest.basic.html#basic[java] (1 total): >> dtto caused by missing methods in the package java.util.base64 >> >> many (almost all) other failures: >> +-infinity returned instead of NaN in Double/double computations > > We think these are known failures, but again if you could send along the > relevant .jtr files then we can make sure. What do you mean by "known failures"? If there are known failures in the draft RI, then it is not fit for purpose. Andrew. From paul.sandoz at oracle.com Thu Jan 23 01:50:58 2014 From: paul.sandoz at oracle.com (Paul Sandoz) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 10:50:58 +0100 Subject: Java SE 8 (JSR 337) Final Release Specification, RI, and TCK: DRAFT In-Reply-To: <20140122162142.163659@eggemoggin.niobe.net> References: <20140116133513.77552@eggemoggin.niobe.net>, <52DFC1DE.5020909@redhat.com> <20140122162142.163659@eggemoggin.niobe.net> Message-ID: On Jan 23, 2014, at 1:21 AM, mark.reinhold at oracle.com wrote: > 2014/1/21 21:04 -0800, Andrew Haley : >> There are some JCK failures in the draft RI. >> >> compiler tests: all ok >> devtools tests: all ok >> runtime tests: 68928 passed, 68 failures, 0 errors >> >> Failures: >> api/org_ietf/jgss/GSSContext/* (14 total): >> all caused by missing support for AES256, so I'd say it's expected > > Hrm, maybe you expect them but they're not known failures. Could you > please send me (privately) the relevant .jtr file and also a description > of the system on which you're running the JCK (OS, kernel version, > hardware, etc.)? I'll forward that information on to the JCK team for > analysis. > >> api/java_util/Base64/Decoder/* (20 total): >> caused by missing methods in the package java.util.base64 >> >> api/signaturetest/sigtest.basic.html#basic[java] (1 total): >> dtto caused by missing methods in the package java.util.base64 >> >> many (almost all) other failures: >> +-infinity returned instead of NaN in Double/double computations > > We think these are known failures, but again if you could send along the > relevant .jtr files then we can make sure. > That last one (+-oo/Nan) might be related to: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8030212 http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/68de5492a06d which was fixed in b124 (IIRC the draft RI is b121?). Paul. From mark.reinhold at oracle.com Thu Jan 23 10:03:23 2014 From: mark.reinhold at oracle.com (mark.reinhold at oracle.com) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 10:03:23 -0800 Subject: Java SE 8 (JSR 337) Final Release Specification, RI, and TCK: DRAFT In-Reply-To: References: <20140116133513.77552@eggemoggin.niobe.net>, <20140122162142.163659@eggemoggin.niobe.net>, Message-ID: <20140123100323.675804@eggemoggin.niobe.net> 2014/1/22 17:50 -0800, paul.sandoz at oracle.com: > On Jan 23, 2014, at 1:21 AM, mark.reinhold at oracle.com wrote: >> 2014/1/21 21:04 -0800, Andrew Haley : >>> ... >>> >>> many (almost all) other failures: >>> +-infinity returned instead of NaN in Double/double computations >> >> We think these are known failures, but again if you could send along the >> relevant .jtr files then we can make sure. > > That last one (+-oo/Nan) might be related to: > > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8030212 > http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/68de5492a06d > > which was fixed in b124 (IIRC the draft RI is b121?). Thanks -- the JCK team is aware of this. - Mark From mark.reinhold at oracle.com Thu Jan 23 20:58:27 2014 From: mark.reinhold at oracle.com (mark.reinhold at oracle.com) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 20:58:27 -0800 Subject: Java SE 8 (JSR 337) Final Release Specification, RI, and TCK: DRAFT In-Reply-To: <52E0D8AD.3010104@redhat.com> References: <20140116133513.77552@eggemoggin.niobe.net>, <20140122162142.163659@eggemoggin.niobe.net>, <52E0D8AD.3010104@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20140123205827.767350@eggemoggin.niobe.net> 2014/1/22 16:54 -0800, Andrew Haley : > On 01/23/2014 12:21 AM, mark.reinhold at oracle.com wrote: >> 2014/1/21 21:04 -0800, Andrew Haley : >>> There are some JCK failures in the draft RI. >>> >>> compiler tests: all ok >>> devtools tests: all ok >>> runtime tests: 68928 passed, 68 failures, 0 errors >>> >>> Failures: >>> api/org_ietf/jgss/GSSContext/* (14 total): >>> all caused by missing support for AES256, so I'd say it's expected >> >> Hrm, maybe you expect them but they're not known failures. Could you >> please send me (privately) the relevant .jtr file and also a description >> of the system on which you're running the JCK (OS, kernel version, >> hardware, etc.)? I'll forward that information on to the JCK team for >> analysis. > > OK. The JCK team is still looking into the AES256 issue. We don't think these tests should be failing. >>> api/java_util/Base64/Decoder/* (20 total): >>> caused by missing methods in the package java.util.base64 >>> >>> api/signaturetest/sigtest.basic.html#basic[java] (1 total): >>> dtto caused by missing methods in the package java.util.base64 Due to JDK-8028397. The changes for that bug were in build 120, but the corresponding JCK tests hadn't caught up by the time we posted the draft JCK. >>> many (almost all) other failures: >>> +-infinity returned instead of NaN in Double/double computations This bug was introduced in build 120, fixed in 124 (JDK-8030212). >> We think these are known failures, but again if you could send along the >> relevant .jtr files then we can make sure. > > What do you mean by "known failures"? If there are known failures > in the draft RI, then it is not fit for purpose. Indeed! The JCK, as you can see from the examples above, can be out of sync with the changes in the code base. The "known failures list" we made available to you along with the draft JCK was, due to an oversight, itself out of sync. (You can give that list to the JCK test harness as an "exclude list" and it will exclude the listed tests. Had you done so then you'd not have seen the java.util.base64 failures, but you would still have seen the stream Infinity/NaN failures since the list was stale.) We're in the process of preparing an updated draft RI and JCK pair that should be much closer, if not perfectly, in sync. We'll let you know when it's ready. - Mark From mark.reinhold at oracle.com Tue Jan 28 20:51:23 2014 From: mark.reinhold at oracle.com (mark.reinhold at oracle.com) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 20:51:23 -0800 Subject: Java SE 8 (JSR 337) Final Release Specification, RI, and TCK: DRAFT In-Reply-To: <20140123205827.767350@eggemoggin.niobe.net> References: <20140116133513.77552@eggemoggin.niobe.net>, <52E0D8AD.3010104@redhat.com>, <20140123205827.767350@eggemoggin.niobe.net> Message-ID: <20140128205123.482641@eggemoggin.niobe.net> 2014/1/23 12:58 -0800, mark.reinhold at oracle.com: > 2014/1/22 16:54 -0800, Andrew Haley : >> On 01/23/2014 12:21 AM, mark.reinhold at oracle.com wrote: >>> 2014/1/21 21:04 -0800, Andrew Haley : >>>> There are some JCK failures in the draft RI. >>>> >>>> ... >>>> >>>> Failures: >>>> api/org_ietf/jgss/GSSContext/* (14 total): >>>> all caused by missing support for AES256, so I'd say it's expected >>> >>> Hrm, maybe you expect them but they're not known failures. Could you >>> please send me (privately) the relevant .jtr file and also a description >>> of the system on which you're running the JCK (OS, kernel version, >>> hardware, etc.)? I'll forward that information on to the JCK team for >>> analysis. >> >> OK. > > The JCK team is still looking into the AES256 issue. We don't think > these tests should be failing. These tests will pass if you enable AES256 encryption [1], as you probably know. - Mark [1] http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/technotes/guides/security/jgss/jgss-features.html From mark.reinhold at oracle.com Tue Jan 28 21:07:06 2014 From: mark.reinhold at oracle.com (mark.reinhold at oracle.com) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 21:07:06 -0800 Subject: Java SE 8 (JSR 337) Final Release: Draft RI and TCK updated Message-ID: <20140128210706.540609@eggemoggin.niobe.net> An updated draft Reference Implementation is available here: http://jdk8.java.net/java-se-8-ri/ This is based on JDK 8 build 126; the previous was build 121. The draft TCK has also been updated, to JCK 8 build 40. You can access it via the instructions you previously received. There are a small number of known TCK failures, as documented in the "known failures list" delivered with the TCK (jck8b40-jdk8b126.kfl). If you run the TCK, provide that file as an exclude list in order to skip the problematic tests. Those tests will be omitted from the final JCK 8 build, and other than documentation fixes that should be the only JCK change relative to JDK 8 build 40. I expect to post a minor update to the draft Specification shortly, and I'd like to allow at least an additional week for feedback on that, so if you wish to run the TCK against the RI in your local environment you should have plenty of time. - Mark