On 11/10/2014 06:13 PM, roger riggs wrote: > On 11/10/2014 9:54 AM, Aleksey Shipilev wrote: >> Again, I don't quite understand. Is it about storing the reference to >> String as the thread name, that can potentially be used for external >> synchronization? >> >> If so, I have a hard time devising a sane test case that might fail with >> this change. Internal code does not synchronize on Thread.name. Anyone >> synchronizing on Thread.getName() result has broken synchronization with >> current code. Anyone synchronizing on Thread.getName() result after this >> patch will have that (ahem) fixed, plus a performance problem. >> >> > Potentially, any change we make to the implementation can result in > a change in application behavior, even changing from returning a > unique String to an immutable but constant String. For 9, this will > have time to uncover obscure application dependencies. I'd be more > cautious about backporting to 8.
Understood. I argue users (futilely) synchronizing on Thread.getName() are very rare. -Aleksey.
