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
: 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
systems using it.
+1
LieGrue,
strub
--- On Thu, 2/10/11, Udo Schnurpfeilu...@schnurpfeil.de wrote:
From: Udo Schnurpfeilu...@schnurpfeil.de
Subject: About the JVM bug with 2.2250738585072012e-00308
To: MyFaces Developmentdev@myfaces.apache.org
Date: Thursday, February 10, 2011, 10:59 AM
Hi
: Udo Schnurpfeilu...@schnurpfeil.de
Subject: About the JVM bug with 2.2250738585072012e-00308
To: MyFaces Developmentdev@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
but do they release 1.2 and 5.0 also to the public, or only to paying customers?
LieGrue,
strub
--- On Thu, 2/10/11, Udo Schnurpfeil u...@schnurpfeil.de wrote:
From: Udo Schnurpfeil u...@schnurpfeil.de
Subject: Re: About the JVM bug with 2.2250738585072012e-00308
To: MyFaces Development dev
http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/topics/security/alert-cve-2010-4476-305811.html
LieGrue,
strub
--- On Thu, 2/10/11, Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org wrote:
From: Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org
Subject: Re: About the JVM bug with 2.2250738585072012e-00308
To: MyFaces Development
