[8u60] Request for Approval: 8079362: Enforce best practices for Node token API usage

[Attila Szegedi]

Understood. I had it reviewed, so with that in mind, please approve it as below (added a link to the jdk8 review thread):

Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8079362 <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8079362>
jdk9 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~attila/8079362/webrev.00 <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~attila/8079362/webrev.00>
jdk9 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-May/004487.html <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-May/004487.html>

jdk8 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~attila/8079362/webrev.8u-dev <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~attila/8079362/webrev.8u-dev>
jdk8 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-May/004497.html <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-May/004497.html>

Thanks,
  Attila.

> On May 6, 2015, at 6:17 PM, Rob McKenna <rob.mckenna at oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Attila,
> 
> If the patch doesn't apply cleanly we generally look for a codereview.
> 
>     -Rob
> 
> On 06/05/15 16:41, Attila Szegedi wrote:
>> Please approve.
>> 
>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8079362 <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8079362>
>> jdk9 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~attila/8079362/webrev.00 <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~attila/8079362/webrev.00>
>> jdk9 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-May/004487.html <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-May/004487.html>
>> 
>> jdk8 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~attila/8079362/webrev.8u-dev <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~attila/8079362/webrev.8u-dev>
>> 
>> Changes apply *almost* cleanly to jdk8u-dev after path reshuffling from modular source code layout, except for these deviations:
>> 1. the 8u-dev changeset doesn’t contain changes to Parser API files in src/jdk.scripting.nashorn/share/classes/jdk/nashorn/api/tree directory, as this API is 9-only.
>> 2. the 8u-dev changeset doesn’t contain changes in the ordering of imports in Lower.java, as it is already correct in 8u-dev (it was incorrect in 9).
>> 
>> I didn’t ask the team to review these trivial deviations; if you think it’s required I’ll ask them to do it.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>>   Attila.
>