Udo, is there a link to their bug?
pretty interesting that they now fix it for almost everything :) On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Udo Schnurpfeil <u...@schnurpfeil.de> wrote: > 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 >>> >>> >> >> >> > -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
