Hi, Could you update the JIRA issue (https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8132928) and JEP 260 (http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/260) about the change we discussed here (jdk.internal.ref.Cleaner now implements Runable to support Lucene and similar apps needing to hack into cleaner), mainly in the section "open issues"?
Maybe also add a comment to the source at the "@Override public void run()" decl, so it may not get lost by later refactorings (if somebody thinks "WTF!?") The update of above docs would be fine for us to have some reference point to cite when we implement the changed Hack. BTW, we already have a preliminary patch for Lucene (untested): https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12784516/LUCENE-6989.patch Thanks for taking care of this issue. Uwe ----- Uwe Schindler uschind...@apache.org ASF Member, Apache Lucene PMC / Committer Bremen, Germany http://lucene.apache.org/ > -----Original Message----- > From: Uwe Schindler [mailto:uschind...@apache.org] > Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 5:49 PM > To: 'Chris Hegarty' <chris.hega...@oracle.com>; 'Alan Bateman' > <alan.bate...@oracle.com>; 'Roger Riggs' <roger.ri...@oracle.com>; > uschind...@apache.org > Cc: 'core-libs-dev' <core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net> > Subject: RE: RFR [9] 8148117: Move sun.misc.Cleaner to jdk.internal.ref > > Hi, > > API changes l and security check look good to me. I don't have time to > compile and test a JDK, but I trust you that it works :-) > > Uwe > > ----- > Uwe Schindler > uschind...@apache.org > ASF Member, Apache Lucene PMC / Committer > Bremen, Germany > http://lucene.apache.org/ > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Chris Hegarty [mailto:chris.hega...@oracle.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 5:28 PM > > To: Alan Bateman <alan.bate...@oracle.com>; Roger Riggs > > <roger.ri...@oracle.com>; uschind...@apache.org > > Cc: core-libs-dev <core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net> > > Subject: Re: RFR [9] 8148117: Move sun.misc.Cleaner to jdk.internal.ref > > > > Latest webrev updated in-place: > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~chegar/8148117/ > > > > * to execute the run method requires an appropriate permission > > * reverted any copyright changes ( leave to a bulk update ) > > * updated the test to remove the script > > > > -Chris. > > > > > > On 26 Jan 2016, at 15:23, Alan Bateman <alan.bate...@oracle.com> > wrote: > > > > > On 26/01/2016 13:55, Chris Hegarty wrote: > > >> It is wonderful to see the various ideas on this thread about the longer > > >> term solution to the prompt releasing of direct buffer native memory. I > > >> do not want to obstruct that ( it is very informative ), but I’d like to > > >> warp > > up > > >> the review on the actual moving of Cleaner. To that end, I’ve update the > > >> webrev as per Alan’s comments and suggestion ( to extend Runnable ). > > >> > > >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~chegar/8148117/ > > >> > > >> -Chris. > > >> > > >> > > > This looks okay. As a defensive-in-depth then Cleaner::run can do a > > permission check and should ease concerns about leakage. > >
