BTW: The hotfix from Oracle is for 1.4, 5.0 and 6.0.
Regards
Udo
Am 10.02.11 12:06, schrieb Mark Struberg:
txs 4 the review!
But the hotfix also rejects numbers like
2.22507385850720120e-10 which is not so abnormal.
not abnormal but still moderately unlikely.
I agree for a long term scenario.
Basically the default should be to disable this workaround and to make it
available via configuration. Btw, it seems that Oracle finally reacted and will
hopefully ship a fixed JVM 1.6 soon (no help for Java5 users of course).
The fix should also be done for 1.2, because many
productive systems using it.
+1
LieGrue,
strub
--- On Thu, 2/10/11, Udo Schnurpfeil<u...@schnurpfeil.de> wrote:
From: Udo Schnurpfeil<u...@schnurpfeil.de>
Subject: About the JVM bug with 2.2250738585072012e-00308
To: "MyFaces Development"<dev@myfaces.apache.org>
Date: Thursday, February 10, 2011, 10:59 AM
Hi,
I've some comments to the JVM bug for the bad number
2.2250738585072012e-00308 (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYFACES-3024)
The problem occures for values which are "very very low".
But the hotfix also rejects numbers like
2.22507385850720120e-10 which is not so abnormal.
Would it not be better, when the hotfix is configurable (be
default turned on), so that the admin can switch it off,
when the JVM bugfix is applied?
The fix should also be done for 1.2, because many
productive systems using it.
What do you think?
Regards
Udo
