On 4/11/11 7:46 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
Stuart Marks wrote:
Hi Core-Libs developers,
I'd like to solicit some advice and discussion about this bug and a potential
fix I'm cooking for it. Here is the bug report; it contains details about the
problem and my analysis of it:
http://bugs.sun.com/bu
Stuart Marks wrote:
Hi Core-Libs developers,
I'd like to solicit some advice and discussion about this bug and a
potential fix I'm cooking for it. Here is the bug report; it contains
details about the problem and my analysis of it:
http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6896297
Hi Stuart,
On Apr 19, 2011, at 6:35 PM, Stuart Marks wrote:
> Please review an updated webrev for this bug:
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~smarks/reviews/6896297/webrev.1/
>
> Using ConcurrentHashMap is much nicer in many ways, and it seems to resolve
> the JCK failures at least as well as the
On 4/20/11 9:00 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
Stuart Marks wrote:
Hi all,
Please review an updated webrev for this bug:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~smarks/reviews/6896297/webrev.1/
Using ConcurrentHashMap is much nicer in many ways, and it seems to resolve
the JCK failures at least as well as the p
Stuart Marks wrote:
Hi all,
Please review an updated webrev for this bug:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~smarks/reviews/6896297/webrev.1/
Using ConcurrentHashMap is much nicer in many ways, and it seems to
resolve the JCK failures at least as well as the previous fix did.
This does nothing to r
Hi all,
Please review an updated webrev for this bug:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~smarks/reviews/6896297/webrev.1/
Using ConcurrentHashMap is much nicer in many ways, and it seems to resolve the
JCK failures at least as well as the previous fix did. This does nothing to
remedy the issue of sn
Hi Peter,
Thanks for your comments on this issue. I understand from Alan that you have
some expertise in RMI; it's most welcome here.
It's good to hear that serialization compatibility isn't that big of a deal.
This makes things easier. It would seem reasonable to investigate replacing
HashM
Stuart,
A couple of comments so far:
I don't think that there would be a serialization compatibility problem with
changing Activation.groupTable to have a ConcurrentHashMap instead of a
HashMap. The field's declared type is Map, so the deserialization process
would be able to assign either cl
Stuart Marks wrote:
:
The key issue seems to be whether we want to preserve compatibility of
the serialized form. If we care about compatibility of the serialized
form, #3 is probably the safest. If somebody comes along and tells us
that we don't have to worry about serial compatibility of th
Hi David,
Thanks for your notes and analysis. Good point about the temporary
inconsistency between groupEntry and groupTable. With the change, there's a
brief moment where a GroupEntry in the registered state can be observed to be
absent from the groupTable, which wasn't possible before. I don
Hi Stuart,
I can't answer your specific questions as I'm not familiar with the RMI
infrastructure either. Taking the lock in writeObject and moving
group.unregister out of the sync block to avoid deadlock seems
reasonable. The main question to ask with such a move is whether the
temporary inc
Hi Core-Libs developers,
I'd like to solicit some advice and discussion about this bug and a potential
fix I'm cooking for it. Here is the bug report; it contains details about the
problem and my analysis of it:
http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6896297
and here's a webrev o
12 matches
Mail list logo
