It is on my list. to update the javadocs I need a ccc which I have not done yet and is needed as part of this change
On Nov 23, 2012, at 3:07 AM, Deven You wrote: > Hi Lance, > > Is there any plan for this issue, if any could you update to me? > > Thanks a lot! > On 10/29/2012 06:39 PM, Lance Andersen - Oracle wrote: >> Hi Deven, >> >> I will address the needed updates a bit later. >> >> Thank you for your input >> >> Best >> Lance >> On Oct 29, 2012, at 3:51 AM, Deven You wrote: >> >>> Hi Alan, >>> >>> The Java Spec does not mention the thread safe for JDBC API. But I see the >>> other code in SerialBlob/SerialClob have not consider it. >>> >>> I think use buff == null to replace isFree is a good idea because it also >>> avoid the problem for the condition buf == null && isFree == false so we >>> won't need create a readObject method. >>> >>> Thanks for your suggestion for isFree, I will correct it later. >>> >>> Lance: How about your suggestion? Since you mentioned you will develop the >>> implementation yourself. I use my implementation mainly for the test cases. >>> But you may also take a look my implementation. >>> >>> Thanks a lot! >>> >>> On 09/21/2012 04:37 PM, Alan Bateman wrote: >>>> On 21/09/2012 04:21, Deven You wrote: >>>>> Hi Lance, >>>>> >>>>> I am very busy with other work so I can't work with the >>>>> SerialBlob/SerialClob item for long time. I am very happy to refine the >>>>> current test case and create new tests for SerialClob. >>>>> >>>>> I have create a new webre[1] for this task, please review it. >>>>> >>>>> [1] http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~youdwei/OJDK-576/webrev.01/ >>>>> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Eyoudwei/OJDK-576/webrev.01/> >>>>> >>>>> PS: If the isFree is not transient, I want to know how we add this field >>>>> to the javadoc serialized form? >>>> I don't know very much about the rowset API and I can't see anything to >>>> specify whether it is meant to be safe for use by concurrent threads. >>>> There are clearly lots of issues here and implementing free introduces a >>>> lot more, especially with the possibility of an asynchronous free or more >>>> than one thread calling free at around the same time. >>>> >>>> Have you considered "buf == null" to mean that the resources are freed? >>>> That might avoid needing to change the serialized form. Also as these >>>> types are serializable it means you have to consider the case where you >>>> deserialize to buf == null && isFree == false for example. On that point, >>>> it looks to me that this code needs a readObject anyway (for several >>>> reasons). >>>> >>>> A small point is that "isFree" is a odd name for a method that doesn't >>>> return a boolean. If the patch goes ahead then I think it needs a better >>>> name, ensureNotFree or requireNotFree or something like that. >>>> >>>> -Alan. >>>> >> >> >> Lance Andersen| Principal Member of Technical Staff | +1.781.442.2037 >> Oracle Java Engineering >> 1 Network Drive >> Burlington, MA 01803 >> lance.ander...@oracle.com >> > Lance Andersen| Principal Member of Technical Staff | +1.781.442.2037 Oracle Java Engineering 1 Network Drive Burlington, MA 01803 lance.ander...@oracle.com
