Switch to atomic ops for the various sequence numbers, as opposed to
synchronizing on the class object on every object construction.
- DML
--
diff -r dde3fe2e8164 src/share/classes/java/util/logging/LogRecord.java
--- a/src/share/classes/java/util/logging/LogRecord.java Wed Feb 25
14:32:01
You might want to have a look at the new contribution process [1].
Using that will increase the probability that someone will evaluate
your patch sooner rather than later.
- Mark
[1] http://openjdk.java.net/contribute
This looks fine, as long as there is no dependency of the implementation
on the two atomic counters being incremented in concert, as seems likely.
Martin
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 15:35, David M. Lloyd david.ll...@redhat.com wrote:
Switch to atomic ops for the various sequence numbers, as opposed
David M. Lloyd wrote:
On 03/12/2009 05:41 PM, Mark Reinhold wrote:
You might want to have a look at the new contribution process [1].
Using that will increase the probability that someone will evaluate
your patch sooner rather than later.
- Mark
[1] http://openjdk.java.net/contribute
2009/3/13 Dalibor Topic dalibor.to...@sun.com:
David M. Lloyd wrote:
On 03/12/2009 05:41 PM, Mark Reinhold wrote:
You might want to have a look at the new contribution process [1].
Using that will increase the probability that someone will evaluate
your patch sooner rather than later.
-
On 03/12/2009 07:01 PM, Dalibor Topic wrote:
David M. Lloyd wrote:
On 03/12/2009 05:41 PM, Mark Reinhold wrote:
You might want to have a look at the new contribution process [1].
Using that will increase the probability that someone will evaluate
your patch sooner rather than later.
- Mark
2009/3/12 Martin Buchholz marti...@google.com:
This looks fine, as long as there is no dependency of the implementation
on the two atomic counters being incremented in concert, as seems likely.
Martin
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 15:35, David M. Lloyd david.ll...@redhat.com wrote:
Switch to
2009/3/13 David M. Lloyd david.ll...@redhat.com:
On 03/12/2009 07:01 PM, Dalibor Topic wrote:
David M. Lloyd wrote:
On 03/12/2009 05:41 PM, Mark Reinhold wrote:
You might want to have a look at the new contribution process [1].
Using that will increase the probability that someone will
On 03/12/2009 07:13 PM, Andrew John Hughes wrote:
This is actually an interesting rare case where two atomic variables
can replace a synchronised block. Looking at the code, there seems to
be no issue with the thread being descheduled and then resumed during
the operation of this constructor.
2009/3/13 David M. Lloyd david.ll...@redhat.com:
On 03/12/2009 07:13 PM, Andrew John Hughes wrote:
This is actually an interesting rare case where two atomic variables
can replace a synchronised block. Looking at the code, there seems to
be no issue with the thread being descheduled and then
Opened as a BugZilla bug:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/show_bug.cgi?id=100021
- DML
On 03/12/2009 05:35 PM, David M. Lloyd wrote:
Switch to atomic ops for the various sequence numbers, as opposed to
synchronizing on the class object on every object construction.
2009/3/13 Dalibor Topic dalibor.to...@sun.com:
David M. Lloyd wrote:
It seems that the change would break serialization, by changing the type
of a serialized field (in both classes) away from a primitive one. See
http://java.sun.com/javase/6/docs/platform/serialization/spec/version.html
for
Andrew John Hughes said the following on 03/13/09 10:13:
The rest of the code deals with allocating an ID to the
thread creating the LogRequest object and doesn't depend on the global
sequence number, so it doesn't matter if this is incremented by
another thread before the constructor completes.
Changeset: f381e737916d
Author:xuelei
Date: 2009-03-13 12:59 +0800
URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/tl/jdk/rev/f381e737916d
6798714: OCSPResponse class has to check the validity of signing certificate
for OCSP response
Summary: checking validity and ocsp-nocheck extension.
14 matches
Mail list logo
