> But I think someone from the security team should chime in on this.
I plan to look closer at this. On the surface, it looks acceptable to
me, but I've been heads down in the SNI code: likely for one more day.
Wanted to also run this by one of my other colleagues.
One thought: I'm wonderin
It seems fine with me.
But I think someone from the security team should chime in on this.
-kto
On Sep 18, 2012, at 7:39 AM, Andrew Hughes wrote:
> This is an issue that has been with us for a while. See:
>
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/show_bug.cgi?id=100062
> http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabas
Changeset: 27182d84a244
Author:chegar
Date: 2012-09-19 14:55 +0100
URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/27182d84a244
7199500: Minor typo in AbstractStringBuilder.java header
Reviewed-by: coffeys
! src/share/classes/java/lang/AbstractStringBuilder.java
Changeset: 5d064862376d
Author:jgish
Date: 2012-09-19 08:52 -0400
URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/5d064862376d
4722265: (spec str) StringBuffer.ensureCapacity() should mention that capacity
is mutable
Summary: add usage note to AbstractStringBuilder ensureCapacity()