Contribution to Bug 100120
Hello, I am trying to following the http://openjdk.java.net/contribute/ What is the next step to progressing bug https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/show_bug.cgi?id=100120 It has a suggested fix provided. Regards, Peter.
Re: Contribution to Bug 100120
At least: - provide a formal patch as attachment to bug 100120 - pray for a sponsor - pray, the sponsor would have time ;-) -Ulf Am 24.07.2011 09:18, schrieb Peter Lawrey: Hello, I am trying to following the http://openjdk.java.net/contribute/ What is the next step to progressing bug https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/show_bug.cgi?id=100120 It has a suggested fix provided. Regards, Peter.
Re: Contribution to Bug 100120
Peter Lawrey wrote: Hello, I am trying to following the http://openjdk.java.net/contribute/ What is the next step to progressing bug https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/show_bug.cgi?id=100120 It has a suggested fix provided. Regards, Peter. I would suggest re-basing the patch and attaching it to the bug. It would also be good to create a standalone test case that can be used to demonstrate the contention (we could add it to tests in jdk/test/java/lang/reflect/Proxy so that future maintainers have some performance tests to run). If a patch is attached then you could start a discussion here, get it reviewed, and get a sponsor to help get it in. -Alan.
Re: Contribution to Bug 100120
One other valuable bit of valuable info missing from the current bug writeup is an explanation of why the RFE (request for enhancement) matters. Where is the problem encountered, how widespread is the problem, how much of a bottleneck does it represent, etc.? Any context you can provide can only help to attract attention and effort to this problem. I suspect that in the past there was a resistance to converting to ConcurrentHashMap because of the additional overhead that CHM introduced. This has been fixed in JDK 7 so this resistance may no longer apply. Mike On Jul 24 2011, at 08:17 , Alan Bateman wrote: > Peter Lawrey wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I am trying to following the http://openjdk.java.net/contribute/ >> What is the next step to progressing bug >> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/show_bug.cgi?id=100120 >> It has a suggested fix provided. >> >> Regards, >> Peter. >> > I would suggest re-basing the patch and attaching it to the bug. It would > also be good to create a standalone test case that can be used to demonstrate > the contention (we could add it to tests in jdk/test/java/lang/reflect/Proxy > so that future maintainers have some performance tests to run). If a patch is > attached then you could start a discussion here, get it reviewed, and get a > sponsor to help get it in. > > -Alan.
Re: Contribution to Bug 100120
Alan Bateman said the following on 07/25/11 01:17: Peter Lawrey wrote: Hello, I am trying to following the http://openjdk.java.net/contribute/ What is the next step to progressing bug https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/show_bug.cgi?id=100120 It has a suggested fix provided. Regards, Peter. I would suggest re-basing the patch and attaching it to the bug. It would also be good to create a standalone test case that can be used to demonstrate the contention (we could add it to tests in jdk/test/java/lang/reflect/Proxy so that future maintainers have some performance tests to run). If a patch is attached then you could start a discussion here, get it reviewed, and get a sponsor to help get it in. The original code is provided under GPL3. I don't know how you go about incorporating such code into OpenJDK ? But as Mike says, first you have establish there is a general problem that needs to be solved and that adding this class, or changing the existing implementation is a reasonable change to make for the OpenJDK. David -Alan.
Re: Contribution to Bug 100120
David Holmes wrote: The original code is provided under GPL3. I don't know how you go about incorporating such code into OpenJDK ? I don't know how the GPL3 header ended up on that version but presumably he can attach a patch to the bug that is against the current version of java.lang.reflect.Proxy that is in the jdk8 forest. -Alan.
Re: Contribution to Bug 100120
Hi Alan, Alan Bateman said the following on 07/25/11 14:16: David Holmes wrote: The original code is provided under GPL3. I don't know how you go about incorporating such code into OpenJDK ? I don't know how the GPL3 header ended up on that version but presumably he can attach a patch to the bug that is against the current version of java.lang.reflect.Proxy that is in the jdk8 forest. But in this case the person wishing to advance the bug (Peter) is not the person who filed the bug. It isn't clear if the original submitter was actually contributing a patch or simply pointing to an alternate implementation that doesn't have the problem. So ignoring for now whether this is a suitable patch, what would the process be if you came across third-party code (such as this) that is under GPL3 and you wanted to use that code in the OpenJDK? can it be done? David -Alan.
