Hi Lance,
Is there any update for this issue. If you have anything I can do,
please let me know.
Thanks a lot!
On 11/24/2012 12:45 AM, Lance Andersen - Oracle wrote:
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
<http://oracle.com/us/design/oracle-email-sig-198324.gif>
<http://oracle.com/us/design/oracle-email-sig-198324.gif>Lance
Andersen| Principal Member of Technical Staff | +1.781.442.2037
Oracle Java Engineering
1 Network Drive
Burlington, MA 01803
lance.ander...@oracle.com <mailto:lance.ander...@oracle.com>
